HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-57.-1-38.3
r-
_.~
__ ... .__.0 _ _ .~_ ----..::....._ ~~:to~~_. _~,,~ _,~_~_,~."',,"'~".~".~_ ~
RECEIVED
j/\I
.-,'-'.-
1__ _ ",
Town Ck;K Scuthold
j,A r'~ ~~ ~i iir.;,U
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
_________________________________x
In the Matter of the Application
of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
---------------------------x
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1984,
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS
HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN
January 17 1986
CHRISTOPHER KELLEY
Of Counsel
TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901
TOWN BOARD Of THE TOWN Of SOUTHOLD
-----------------~---------------x
In the Matt2r ot the Application
of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
.
---------------------------------x
cmlMENTS ON THE DRAfT ENVIROi'lMENTAL
IMPACT STATE~ENT DATED SEPTEi'18ER 26, 1984,
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS
HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN
.
,January 17, 1986
CHRISTOPHER KELLEY
Of Counsel
TOWN BOARD Of THE TOWN Of SOUTHOLD
---------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application
of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
---------------------------------x
The annexed comments ot Land Use Planner, Frederick
.
Re0ter and Environmental Analyst, Laurence Penny. are
.
submitted on behalf ot Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn
who reside on Tarpon Drive in close proximity to the
proposed Southport Development Project in the Town ot
Southold.
We have reviewed the proposed Draft EIS with
our clients.
That document, prepared by the applicant
without any corrections or revisions by the Town Board.
is legally inadequate.
The Board should note that under the State
.
Environmental Quality Review Act
A Draft EIS. . is intended to be the source of
information used by each involved agency to
consider environmental concerns in making its
decisions. The Draft EIS also serves as a public
disclosure of a project's environmental effects.
(New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, SEQRA Handbook, Page B-29).
As the SEQRA Regulations provide at 6 N.Y.C.R.R.
5617.14 (t), the body of all Dratt EIS's shall at least
contain the tollowing.
.
(1) a concise description of the proposed action,
its purpose and need;
(2) a concise description of the environmental
setting of the areas to be effected, sufficient to
understand the effects of the proposed action and
alternatives;
(3) a statement of the important environmental
impacts of the proposed action, including short-
and long-term effects and typical associated
environmental effects;
(4) an identification and brief discussion of any
adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided i~ the proposed action is implemented;
(5) a description and evaluation of reasonable
alternatives to the action which would achieve the
same or similar objectives. (The description and
evaluation should be at a level of detail
sufficient to permit a comporable assessment of the
alternatives discussed. The no-action alternative
must also be discussed and evaluated);
(6) an identification of any irreversible and
irretrievible commitments of resources which would
be associated with the proposed action should it be
implemented;
(7)a description of mitigation measures to minimize
the adverse environmental impacts;
(8) a description of any growth inducing aspects of
the proposed actions, where applicable and
significant;
(9) a discussion of the effects of the proposed
action on the use and conservation of energy, where
applicable and significant;
(10)
(11) a list of any underlying studies, reports and
other information obtained and considered in
preparing the statement;
.
As notccd in the SEQRZ\ handbook it is encumbent
upon t:18 Lead a(.J>~nc:l, in this case the To',oJO Board, to
determine tne adequacy and completccnuss ot a proposed
draft EIS anJ
to ensure that all relevant information is
presented and analyized" (Page B-36).
-2-
.
As wiLL be discussed below and in the detailed
comments attached, there aee a number ot serious
ommissions in the Southport Development dratt EIS. It
is totally inadequate tor pUblic review at this time.
The dratt EIS snould be sent back to the applicant tor
inclusion ot the ~ritical intormation that has thus tae
Jeen ,....ithheld.. Forcing the public to comment on the
inadequate draft at this time is unfair and is contrary
to la'.....
,'\s thee SEQRA Handbook states, the draft EIS is to
serve as a public disclosure for projects and
anvironmental effects.
The public is entitled to
.
co~~l~te disclosure of a project's environmental impacts
in the DEIS. Applicants and agencies are not permitted
to circulate inadequate dratts and then tor the first
time, compile the necessary information in a final EIS.
As this Board is aware the public comment process
on a DEIS is intended to insure that all potential
impacts are thoroughly examined and that the applicant
meaningtully responds to the public's comments. An
agency cannot legally withhold (or tail to require
submission ot) critical intormation until the
prepaeation of the tinal EIS, thereby shielding it from
pubic scrutiny. Moreover, such action by an agency
-3-
.
would ettectiv,,,ly immasculate the SEQRA flrocess.
Failure to return the EIS to the applicant now tor
completion and resubmission to the flublic for comment
will undoubtedly result in a poorly focused and
inade~uat8 environmental raview, and perhaps litigation
ana delay.
For many ~ears under the National Environmental
policy Act (the model for SEQRA), agencies prepared
encylopedic EIS's in an attempt to justity decisions
already made.
The documents were filled with voluminous
recitations of generic intormation on soils, plant and
animal lite.
However, the documents would be short on
.
site specitic analysis and real disclosure of impacts
and reasonable alternatives to a proflosal.
Unfortunately, the draft EIS on the Southport
Development flroject is similar to the detective EIS's
tiled under NEPA in that no real analysis is flresented.
However, it talls even farther short than the defective
DEIS's tiled under NEPA in that it does not even catalog
relevant generic intormation on soils ~lant and animal
lite, which would be helpful, it not required, to
properly assess the environmental impacts ot the
proJect. A review of the DEIS indicates that it is
devoid of genUine analysis and disclosure ot critical
-4-
Lssues.
Some at The most glaring ommissions in the DEIS are
as tallows
1. Tne Dt:IS lacks analysis at the current and
proposed land use and zoning policies which the site is
subJect to.
The current land use and zoning policies
.
ettecting the ~roject site are not fully described in
the EIS. The parcel was apparently zoned "c Light
Industrial", in 1971. However apparently. this zone
change atfected only the upland portion of the parcel
and not the 3.7 acres of privately owned underwater
Land. That lahd is presumably still zoned "A
Residential". At the time of the change to the current
"c Light Industrial" Zone on the upland portion of the
premises. the premises was occupied by a pre-existing,
non-conforming marina facility operating on the upland
portion of the premises and extending out into the
.
water.
Upon information and belief, the pre-
existing. non-conforming use of that marina has been
illegally expanded, l.e., the number of boatslips has
dramatically increased, without the benefit of a
variance or special exception. Apparently, in 1976, the
prior owner of the premises obtained a special exception
from the Zoning Board of Appeals to use the upland
-5-
portion of the premises as a llprivat8 clubtt and
const~ucted a pool and tennis courts thereon.
Historically. the owner and/or prior owners of the
prem1ses have not been content with a single use of the
premises but have attempted to jam as many uses onto th~
property as 9ossible.
First, there was a non-conforming
ma~ina 1n a "C. Light Industrial" zone, then a special
.
exception tor a I'private club" was granted, the
combination of which was not anticipated in the Zoning
Code.
Now, the applicant would like to add the
additional uses of a high density motel and restaurant
to the already existing uses on the site.
However, by granting the requested zone change, the
applicant can still not satisty his desire for multiple
uses of the propertf.
The proposed ";1-1" Designation
.
Eor the prem1ses does not allow marinas as a permitted
use, nor does it allow motels or restaurants.
Although,
under the ",'1-1" District, one special exception use is
"hotels and motels", and another is "marinas", nowhere
is there provided a "compound" or t'triplicate" special
''!xception use that would allow a marina, motel and
restaurant.
In fact, restaurants are not even contained
wi~~L~ ~he special exception uses in this district, and
would be forbidden without a use variance. The
-6-
need tor a use variance was omitted tram the list at
necessary approvals on page 13 at the DEIS.
Such
variances are not easily obtained tram the Zoning Board
of i>.ppeals.
The simple tact is
that the zone change
applied tor would not allow the project as proposed.
The applicant is simply asking tor a combination at uses
which are not ~ermitted in any district in the current
.
zoning scheme at the Town.
In addition to proposing new non-conforming uses
the applicant proposes a density of use at the parcel
far in excess at anything anticipated by the Code. The
applicant proposes an 82 unit motel complex.
5100-17 at
the Code sets torth the unit density for hotels and
'notels.
Since the proposed project would not benefit
tram a public sewer system, it is required that each
.
motel unit "have Six Thousand, (6,000) squar,,, teet
of
land tor each unit".
It is beyond belief that the
applicant proposes to use in its calculation at density,
the tull 12.35 acres of the property, including 3.7
acres at underwater land.
The absurdity at using
..lndecwater land in the calculation of densitj and not
excluding the land occupied by the other uses, of a
restaurant and marina are at a minimum contrary to all
notions at good planning.
-7-
l\s shown by Fred Reuter in the attached comments,
assumming that motel units were approved tar the site
and using cons8rvative figures, the maximum density of
motel units would only be 32. This would be the density
the' Board, Zoning Board at Appeals, and Planning Board
would have to start with betore reducing it based on
environmental ~nd aesthetic constraints.
What is
.
apparent tram the whole application is that this is a
proposal to severely over develop, and too intensely
develop the subject site.
2. Nowhere in the DEIS is the impact of Federal
Flood Insurance Regulations discussed and the
~onstraints they may place on this project.
3. No serious analjsis at the need for the project
or the economic impacts at the proJect is set forth.
.
The Dr:IS states
The proposed Southport Development
project has been designed to fill a growing
demand for recreational facilities on Long
Island's North Fork. (Page 6.)
No statistical analysis whatsoever is shown to
support the underlying presumption that the Town and the
~orth Fork is in need of yet another marina and
restaurant.
While the DEIS states that a transient
motel is needed by the community
the nature at the
-8-
projQct suggests that is either currentl] contemplated
for, or will be easily converted to condominium use.
Howe'l~r, the need for motels or condominiums is not
discussed in any detail other than to make the
unsupported conclusory statement set forth above.
4. Nowhere 'does the application discuss th,?
cumulative impacts of this type of development on the
.
surrounding surface waters or on the surrounding
residential areas.
The ommission of such a
discussion makes the document legally inadequate.
5. P,?rhaps the most glaring inadaquacy of the DEIS
is the lack of discussion or analysis of potential
alt2rnatives to the proposal, either under the existing
or the proposed zoning.
It has already been established
that the applicants cannot get the uses that they hope
.
to get either under the existing or the proposed zoning.
What then can they get under the existing or proposed
zoning which fits into the environmental constraints,
which the site provides?
The law reqires that when an impact statement
is prepared, it must include, among other things,
a description and evaluation of
reasonable alternatives to the action
which would achieve the same or similar
objectives. (The description and
evaluation should be at a level of
-9-
detail sufficient to permit the
comparative assessment of the alterna-
tives discussed)The Rno action" alternative
must be discussed and evaluated. (6 NYCRR
5617.14 (F)5.
As stat,ed by the Court ot Appeals in \'1ebster
A_ssoc!cate~_\,'.___Town_ot~eJJ2~e~, 59 N.Y. 2d 220,464
N.Y.S. 2d 43l (1983).
.
to be meaningful such an assessment
[of alternatives] must be based on an
awareness of all reasonable options other
than the proposed action. The degree of
detail with which each alternative must be
discussed will, of course, vary with the
circumstances of each proposal
464 N. Y. S. 2d at 434.
See also E.D.f. v. Flacke, 96
---~--_.~-
A. D. 2d 862. 465 N. Y . S. 2d 759 (2d De p' t. 1983).
SEQRA does not require that every conceivable
alternative must be considered before an EIS will be
considered acceptable.
c:oa 1 i t i on --1':9 a i-,,-s~ i ncol T1ye s~
.
~~_c:!c t:Y_-". ~~ew YC!F_~,
94 A. D. 2d 483, 465 N. Y. S. 2d 170
(1st Dep' t. 1983) at.
176.
Rather
the rule is one ot
reasonablness and balance. Id.
However, the no action
alternative must be discussed and evaluated. 6
N.Y.C.R.R. 617.14 (t) 5.
In addition, the assessment of
the alternatives must be "analytical" ~.D.~, ~_upr_a 465
N.Y.S. 2d at 763.
So long as officials and agencies
have tak2n a "hard look" at environmental consequences,
a Court Hill not seek to lmpose unreasonable extremes.
-10-
~oa~~~~~~_~~~~~~_~~~~~~~_~~s~, Supra, 465 N.Y.S. 2d at
L 76.
As stated by at least one legal writer:
.
The EIS requirement is intended to
institutionalize the consideration of
"environmental factors" at the policy
formulation stage of agency decision making.
Environmental factors that must be considered
involve not only the potential adverse impacts
of the proposed action but all reasonable
alternatives to the action that would result
in l~ss environmental degredation to the area
involved. In fact, the Courts have recognized
that the consideration of alternatives to the
proposed action generally is the "linchpin" of
the EIS. In order to guarantee that
environmentally enhancing options are not
ignored or unnecessarily foreclosed by project
development, the EIS must compare all
"feasible" alternatives to the proposed
project. Feasible alternatives necessarily
include the option of not proceeding with the
project at all, the "no action" alternative,
as well as the entire range of mitigation
measures that could be used to minimize
potential environmental impacts.
Glitzenstein. ~~oi~~t__~~dif~c~~i~n~ Illigitim~~
.
Cir:...c:.umven~i..o-':'.._~Lthe ErS Requirement o_r Desirable Means
.t:9__~educe_Adve rse Env i..~onm",-n taL_r!!\pac~? 10 Ecology Law
(;)uarterly. (1982) at 264.
The diScussion ot alternatives at page 40 and 41 of
the
D[,~ T ~
,-,.J..;::'
bar~lj touches on
the "no actIon" alternative,
which would consist in the continued use of the project
as a pre-existing non-conforming marina and "private
club".
The vague and conclusory statement that
"continued operation as the facility currently exists is
-11-
.
both unrealistic and not economicall (sic) feasible" 1S
not supported by any economic analysis in the OEIS. In
tact nowhere in the document is the current capacity of
the marina, its yearly income, or the type and extent ot
the "private clubl' operations on th8 sita discussed.
Presumably the applicant's assessment ot the "no
action" alternative also consists in its vague
suggestion that the property without the requested zone
change, could be used for some sort ot intense heavy
industrial use such as the handling ot toxics or
hazardous materials. This is plainly rediculous.
~irst, the waterfront nature ot the property would not
be suitable tor such a heavy industrial use,
particularly given the location of the premises.
Second, such a USe would only be a special
exception use, and any Zoning Board ot Appeals with the
public health in mind would severely limit such a use
through the SEQRA process, and through conditions it
would necessarily place on the project to protect the
sensitive environmantal features of the area, including
surtace and groundwater.
Third, the DEe in its regulation ot the property
would not permit such activity in such a sensitive
iocation without the utmost of security in preventing
.
-12-
,::-mmlSSlans at toxic chemicals.
It 1S clear that the applicant, in an attempt to
satlsty the requirement of an analysls of the "no
action" alternative. has set up tor itself a bizarre and
lm,Jro:Jable, if not impossi!Jle, strawman to knock down
with a few vague generalities such as "the requested
zoning appear~ justified by assessment of potential
.
8nvir~nmental impacts"
Page 40.
.
Asidd from the "toxic or hazardous material"
scenario and its threat of "industrial discharges" the
only singLe other alternative discussea is that of
single family residential use. Again, a single
unsupported and vague generality that the development
Ear residential use is "not an economically viable
alternative" is grossly inadequate to satisfy the DEIS
requic2ment of serious analysis. This document must be
rejected as incomplete and inadequate.
6. The issue of legal access has not been
addressed properly by the applicant. (See the comments
of the Secretary of State annexed hereto.) As the
application stands. given the provisions of S280A at
Town Law, the applicant would not be entitled to a
bulding permit for lack of legal access on a public
highway. The applicant proposes three intense uses of
-13-
this pcopecty with only a 16 toot cight ot way to
pcovide access to a public coad.
A legal issue is
.
caised about the applicants ability to additionally
bucden that easement to the extent necessacy to pcovide
access tor the [,n."oject. A plannio] question is raised
by whethec such traftic on a cight-ot- way that size is
advisable give~ the cesidential development pcoposed toc
the Bceezy Shoces paccel ovec which the easement cuns.
7. No discussion is given in the EIS of the
pcoject's tailuce to meet the necessacy setback
cequicements tcom the lot lines foc the docks.
On the
.
sketch plan submitted to the Town Boacd. dated August 8,
1985, the pcoposed docks in the macina tacility would
extend cight up to the boundacy lines ot the pcemises
and not conform to the cequiced 20 foot set back in the
U'I_l" Distcict. In addition, while the applicant says
in its lett,ec to the Town Boacd, dated Septembec 13,
1985, that the macina will not be expanded the EIS at
page L desccibes the pcoject as a pcoposal to
"r-8constrlJct and ~~pand_ the aforementioned marina
tacility to encompass 121 boat slips
A ques t ion
is caised as to whethec the pcoject is an expansion oc
whethec it isn't an expansion ot the macina, and it it
is, doesn't it contcadict the condition ot approval ot
-14-
the> SuttoLk County Planning Commission that it 'Hill not
be an expansion of the existing marina.
CONLUSION
The onLy concLusion that can be reached after
review of the proposed Draft EnvironmentaL Impact
Statement is that it is Legally inadaquate and must be
.
revised substantially at the dratt stage, prior to
circulation to the public tor comment.
The> expert
analysis of our land use> planner and environmental
analysis 1S annexed.
We respectfully request that the
Board return the draft EIS to the applicant for the
changes and additional information outline herein.
RespectfuLLy Submitted,
.
Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley
Attorneys tor Intervenors
Address and Post Oftice Address
33 West Second Street
P.O. Box 398
Riverhead, New York 11901
Ph.; (516) 727-2180
-15-
(
~ ------ - -'
/,~L-:>7 '_'le'{X'<-C(, ,"
/''/): ,( !if'" ,/){Ja:'!/L
-CfA-. ,,-:..-~? -.... ,/--+
. ~~ /
// /~U;J ,:C'J---- ---"
~ ,-,_::J: r!~R ':QUJ
, f t' r_ _~ ",;~ '"1',1
\, " .,. I ,,,\ I . L; : ~
~ ~C~;\I::J
\ \ " -..,.. ,
J.:'..'! .: ~;::C
To,vn Cl?~< S,-:~;+:-:(")ta
STATEOFNEWYOR"
DEPARTMENT OF ST A;-E
ALBANY, N,Y, 12231
G..:.. _ S S~">'i--~'::"<
S=.:C"'':: -.l,"'~ :':F ST"'"TF:
December 27, 1985
Hs. Jcdi th Terry
To\'m i:lerk
Town of Southold
Tmm Hall
rla in ROcd
So utr \ 'J"1 ci, if{ 11 S 7i
~
.
Dear cis. Terry:
The ~epartment of State, as the State's coastal management agency, appre-
ciated the opportunity to review the Draft Environ~ental Impact State~ent for
the Southoort Develop~€nt prepared by The Land Use Company. The De~artment
is interested in this pending action by the Tm.m of Southold, for the zoning
chan~e described in the DElS would affect over 12 acres of land which front
on and lie beneath the waters of Southold Bay.
Although the proposed rezoning would facilitate the siting and operation
of water dependent and water enhanced uses in the State's coastal area, the
plan~ed development does raise a few concerns about the utilization and pro-
tection of coastal resources. Our comments on these concerns are as follows:
.
1. Since the marina \'li11 provide 120+ mooring spaces for seasonal and
transient use, special efforts should be taken to protect the quality
of the Bay's waters from pollution caused by the discharge of vessel
wastes. Therefore, pumpout facilities should be provided for the
safe disposal of such wastes. Further, signs should be posted advis-
ing boat owners to use the available pumpout facilities and not to
discharge vessel wastes into coastal waters.
2. To minimize the impacts that the marina activities may have upon adja-
cent property m'mers, all floats, piers, etc. shoul d be see back a
reasonable distance from the seaward extensions of the site's property
lines. A setback distance of 15 feet is frequently used to reduce the
effects of adjacent boat mooring activities. Due to the enclosed con-
figuration of the water area and the proximity of the land area to the
north of the marina, however, additional setbacks or reali9n~ent of
the proposed piers ~ay be warranted.
3. The need to dredge the marina basin to a depth of 10 feet below Mean
Low Yater is not fully demonstrated in the DElS. This need is further
complicated by the fact that the existing channel which would serve
.'
,
(
(
Hs. JJdith Terry
Dece,cte,' 27, 1935
Page 2
the marina has an authorized depth of -6 ML~. This item requires addi-
tional explanation.
4. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard as a safe and convenient service road
for the motel/restaurant/marina comolex, existing uses and other planned
cevelop~ents seems questionalbe. For exarTole, it is doubtful that t\,O
trucks (delivering supplies to the motel/marina complex) could pass each
other in opposite directions without one of the vehicles going off the
paved surface. If other developments are pi anned along Sage Boulevard,
this may be the appropriate time to consider the improvements necessary
for this roadway.
..
.
5. __ The DElS identifies a number of State coastal policies that vJOuld be
aoolicable to tile proposed action and subsequent c.levelopment. HO\.!eVel',
this section of the document does not adequately describe how the action
would be consistent with those policies. The FE IS should contain further
discussion on these coastal policy concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this JEIS. Should you or the
preparer have any questions on the above comments, olease contact me or Mr. Aram
Terchunian at (518) 474-3642.
Specialist
. ~FB:dlb
cc: A. Terchunian
:<. Cross
Town of Southold, New York
.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
of the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
Dated September 26, 1985
January 14, 1986
.
Prepared by
FREDERICK H. REUTER AICP
Community Planning and Zoning Consultant
CONTENTS
.
1. PURPOSE OF A DEIS
2. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION 2
3. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - NATURAL
SESOURCES 9
4. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - HUMAN
RESOURCES 10
5. V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS 14
6. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - NATURAL
RESOURCES 17
7. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN
RESOURCES 18
8. VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 19
9. VIII. ALTERNATIVES 20
10. IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 20
11. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS 20
.
1.
PURPOSE OF A DE IS
Having determined that the Southport Development action may signi-
ficantly affect the quality of the environment, the Town of Southold
has required that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be
prepared. It is their DEIS that is the subject of this review and analysis.
The SEQR Handbook describes the intent and purpose of such a DEIS
as follows:
.
"It is intended to be the source of information used by
each involved agency to consider environmental concerns
in making its decisions. The Draft EIS also serves as a
pUblic disclosure of a project's environmental affects.
.
"A close relationship exists between project planning and
the Draft EIS for pro;ects that have been planned with
environmental ~oals as inte~ral considerations. This
concept of 'good planning' was one of the objectives con-
templated by the legislature when it passed SEQR. The
process of scoping is a key element in 'good planning'."
(Emphasis supplied) ( Page B-29)
The Southport Development Scoping Session occurred on August 5,1985.
It resulted in an outline of the necessary elements of the DEIS for the
contemplated action. The comments and questions raised in this report
are prepared in the context of that outline, The SEQR Handbook and the
DE IS for the Southport Development,dated September 26, 1985.
The captions of the following sections of this report are derived
from the Scoping Session outline as reported by David Emilita, the Town
Planning Consultant. Those which are not the subject of comment or
question have been omitted.
- 1 -
2.
III. D~SCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Public Need for the Project: The DEIS does not report the "munici-
pal objectives based on adopted community development plans". What are
those municipal objectives?
.
With reference to public need,two unsupported, wide-ranging statements
are made: one is that the "project has been designed to fill a growing
demand for recreational facilities on Long Island's north fork", and the
other is that "This demand has increased dramatically in those areas
associated with marine use and tourism." How do these related to the
proposed project?
.
Considering the project sponsor's objectives, neither of the above needs
describes what type of boating creates the demand, vessel characteristics
and what kind of facility is needed; any quantification of the demand
or its distribution between seasonal and transient use; or the validity
of assuming that a restaurant/motel complex is needed to augment such
dockage. Further, no proof is offered that any such need if documented
actually manifests itself at the subject Southport Development site.
What are the specifics of the public need for this project and the
specifics of how the project sponsor's objectives relate to these needs
on the subject site?
Are there any authoritative statements for such specific statements?
B. Location: The DEIS offers three, relatively simple, outline maps
with reference to the proposed location. They are:
Figure 1, Area Map, which locates the town
on Long Island;
Figure 2, Location Map, which locates the site
with reference to the Conkling Point
peninsula and Route 25; and
Figure 3, Site Map, which is essentially a blown-up
segment of Figure 2.
- 2 -
The SEQR Handbook, in discussing scoping, notes that one of its five
objectives is"to identify the potential boundaries of the project's
impacts"(page B-29). Further on, in discussing the location and physical
dimensions of the project it states:
"This is best accomplished by the use of a location
map (preferably USGS standard topographic maps, scale
1:24000) and in many cases, a site plan showing parcel
subdivisions, streets, drainage, topography, land use,
etc. Tqese maps may also be used as a basis for the de-
scription of the environmental setting."
.
Figures 1 through 3 are not an adequate basis for a clear understanding
of the Southport Development proposal and are certainly not the source
of much information.
.
If one seeking information extends his search to the zoning amendment
application map, which is not mentioned in the DEIS, he finds adjacent
property lines and owners (with the exception of Tax Parcel 12.4 represent-
ing the remaining underwater land in the embayment lying between the
subject site and upland parcels to the west and north) and the approximate
location of buildings. This map does not show the entire embayment.
It does show seven existing buildings and the outline of existing docks.
Another map, given passing mention in the DEIS, is the conceptual site
plan. It was apparently used by the sponsor in presenting his applica-
tion for a change of zone district. It is an illustrative sketch of the
proposed development. However, it only shows very nominal information
about the site's immediately adjacent neighbors and nothing about exist-
ing conditions on the site.
Where are the boundaries of the project's impacts? wno is the owner of
the underwater land in the embayment just outside the Southport Develop-
ment site? What are the existing conditions within these areas, includ-
ing marine access, buildings and environmental characteristics among
other things?
- 3 -
With reference to the description of access to the site, the DEIS gives
no information in this element's text or mapping other than a nominal
double line indicating the existence of Sage Boulevard. Its character-
istics and the sponsor's right to its use should be clarified here in
describing the project. Further, with reference to marine access, there
is no information in the text or mapping of this element showing where
the channel is located or its general characteristics. As a description
of access to the site this element is inadequate.
.
With reference to existing zoning, the site is in the C Light Industrial
Dis~rict which, as the DEIS states, does not permit motels or hotels.
Essentially every use in this district is a special exception use subject
to the approval of the Board of Appeals and site plan approval by the
Planning Board. Further, just as with this proposal for the Southport
Development, they would be subject to SEQR review in appropriate cases.
As a result the same environmental and planning considerations would tend
to limit-their development to an acceptable level.
There is no mention of Flood Plain Zoning in the DEIS. This regulation
may be expected to have a significant affect on this site's development.
.
The scoping outline for this element requires the sponsor to provide a
description of the waterbodies. This has not been provided.
C. DeSign and Layout: The scoping included all the outlined items in
the The SEQR Handbook for this element.
In terms of the total site area it may be deduced that, since 3.72 acres
are underwater land, the upland area must be 8.63 acres to make up the
total of 12.35 acres. However, there is no indication of the "proposed
impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads)". There is a
statement that the parking areas will have pervious surfaces even though
there may be a question as to the degree of permeability of the surface
soils in this area. The site was previously used as a brickyard because
of the availability of clay soils in the vicinity. With reference to
- 4 -
drainage, it is proposed to control run off "by a common storm water
management system designed to eliminate any possible impacts to ground
or surface waters". Since the only information with respect to soil
conditions on this shoreline site is the Soil Survey of Suffolk County,
which designates the surface soils as "made land", and since the historic
use was that of a brickyard, the feasibility of providing such a common
storm water management system should be explored further in the DEIS
and not simply assumed to be feasible.
.
The DEIS does not describe the amount of land to be cleared or the
number and area of buildings and facilities to be demolished. Also
there is no report of the open space to be preserved.
.
With reference to structures the DEIS presents only one square footage,
the 5,500 square foot area of the restaurant. The size and character
of the motel units and their supplementary facilities are not made
available nor are the square footages of marina buildings and facilities,
if any. Nominal capacities of 125 diners for the restaurant and 82
units for the motel are provided. Are these seasonal uses? Is it poss-
ible that the motel units will become condominiums? If so, will:taey
continue to be available for transients? Will the motel include such
uses as a health club open to residents in the area? Will the r'estaurant
include a cocktail lounge/bar or a night club?
As in the case of the storm water management system, there is no evidence
that the "made land" surface soils will accommodate the sewage disposal
system proposed without polluting the surrounding surface waters or
creating problems on the upland ground surfaces.
A third element in the utility services is the private well to be used
for washing boats and irrigation. No offer is made of the quantity of
water to be pumped or its location on the site. How can its impact be
assessed?
With reference to the marina facility, no mention is made of the demo-
lition of the existing docks, bulkheads and similar marine structures.
- 5 -
This seems to be implied. Is this the case? Does it involve a change
in the shoreline and, if so, where? Since the embayment is actually
an abandoned clay pit excavation, what is the character of the bottom
material to be dredged? If it is unsuitable for the creation of tidal
wetland, can we assume that it will be suitable for use on the land
s~rface? There are some indications in this area that a fine clay silt
on the land surface has led to some localized ponding and poor surface
permeability. Will the spoil material aggrevate this condition?
.
Is the proposed e~panded marina capacity to be used seasonally? Will
the. upland area be used for open storage of boats over the winter? Will
the boat launching facility be available to local residents, day-trippers
or other transients looking for a launching ramp? If so, where will
boat trailer storage be provided? Other than fuel, what services will
the marina provide to resident and transient vessel owners? Will there
be a ship's supply store and minor or major repair services? Will there
be utilities available at the dockside? Pump-out facilities? Marina area
lighting? Public address system? What will be the character of those
utilities and services?
.
In terms of zoning, relating these proposed uses to the M-1 General
Multiple-Residence Disrict regulations suggests that several issues need
clarification. One is with references to the uses themselves. Restaur-
ants are not a permitted or special exception use in 5100-50. Open boat
storage and marine fuel sales and storage are not permitted or special
exception uses either, although they now exist on the site. Are they
to be considered nonconforming uses? To what degree will the expansion
of the capacity of such uses be permitted once rezoned? For instance,
the marina capacity is now only 91 berths, could it be expanded to 121
berths if the nonconforming aspects increased as a matter of necessity?
Considering that the site development proposal includes three distinct
principal uses, what area of the site should be assigned to each of
them? For instance, it is a commonly accepted standard that the upland
area of a marina should be equal to that of the water area. In this case
that would be 3.72 acres. This would leave 4.91 acres for the restaurant
- 6 -
and motel uses. Even a nominal area allowance for the restaurant
would include its 5,500 square foot building coverage plus an equal
amount for its immediate environment and parking for 25 automobiles
for a total area of at least 0.45 acres. This leaves 4.46 acres for
tne motel. The zoning regulations require 6,000 square feet of lot
area per motel unit where no public sewer system is available. As a
result, the remaining land area would accommodate no more than 32
motel units. It seems apparent, even on its face, that the Southport
Development proposal ls a case of over development of the site. This
is without referegce to any environmental conditions which in a shore-
line area could result in additional constraints.
.
With reference to the DEIS parking element, it is apparent that the
project sponsor proposes to provide substantially more total spaces
than the existing regulations require, very nearly the number that would
be required under the newly proposed zoning standards.
.
The minimum parking space area standard in the existing zoning regula-
tion is 350 square feet. This indicates that the minimum parking area
without accounting for any site plan specifics would total 2.13 acres,
or 27 percent of the site's upland area. Visual inspection of the
conceptual site plan confirms that parking and driveway will occupy a
very substantial portion of the site. How pervious will these surfaces
really be? Will there be any storm water runoff management system and,
if so, where? Will these areas be lighted? If so, what will be the
character of the lighting?
Since the proposal is for commercial uses in a residential neighborhood,
the question of signage should be addressed. The M-1 General Multiple-
Residence District permits "one (1) advertising sign, either single or
doublefaced, not more than fifty (50) square feet in area. . . . the
upper edge of which shall not project more than fifteen (15) feet six
(6) inches above the ground. Will this generate a claim of hardship for
the proposed marina/restaurant/motel complex? Will they need and
seek a variance? What would be considered necessary in terms of signage
for such a business?
- 7 -
D. Construction and Operation: With reference to the construction period,
the DEIS states that it will take a minimum of two years. What is the
maximum construction period? Since it is noted on page 11 that the motel
construction would be accomplished in two phases, when will they occur
during the overall construction period?
.
With reference to maintenance dredging as the first activity, will that
depend on receipt of all the necessary approvals or will it begin as soon
as possible based on the maintenance dredging permit? Will the dredging
be timed with reference to the seasonal calendar? Similarly, will the
demolition and debris removal occur prior to receipt of all the necessary
approvals? If so, will the site be rehabilitated in case the necessary
approvals are not received or the project delayed for some other reason?
With reference to scheduling, when will the sponsor complete the planning
and design phase? Assuming that the change of zone district is granted,
when will the sponsor be ready to apply for all the other necessary approv-
als? Start construction on each of the principal building types?
When the initial construction generally described in the conceptual site
plan is completed, does the sponsor anticipate any potential future con-
s~ruction on the site?
.
In terms of operation and maintenance, how many employees does the
sponsor expect to engage for each of the principal uses by season and
by time of the day? Does the sponsor propose to continue the maintenance
dredging as needed and be responsible for renewal of the maintenance
dredging permit when the existing permit expires? If Sage Boulevard
is improved as a private road, will the project sponsor pay his share
of the upkeep and maintenance, including such things as snow removal?
F. Approvals: Since the project sponsor seems to leave some details
for later decision, it also seems likely that there will need to be a
further SEQR approval on the final plans.
- 8 -
3.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - NATURAL RESOURCES
.
A. Geology: The DEIS's discussion of soils is extremely limitec. Using
the very brief generalized descriptions of "made land" and "cut and fill
land" is hardly revealing when it is a known fact that the site and its
surrounding area were historically a brickyard and its associated clay
pit excavations. "Made land" in this context strongly indicates an
impact from the bricKyard activity and the immediately adjacent clay pit
excavations, one 9f which now serves as the harbor/marina and the others
whi.ch are the "cut and fill land n to the north of Sage Boulevard across
from the subject site. The clay pit soil type is Canadice silt loam.
The soil survey description of this soil's limitations includes slow
permeability, seasonal high water table at a depth of ~ to 1~ feet and,
in the case of sanitary land fill where leaching would be a factor, hazard
of water pollution. With reference to its engineering properties the soil
survey reports that Canadice silt loam would affect foundations for low
buildings because of seasonal high water table, high compressibility and
large settlement. The textural description also points out that "The soil
must be artifically drained for successful production of commonly grown
crops, but a lack of suitable outlets makes artifical drainage difficult."
.
Topographic mapping and test hole data records prepared for the Breezy
Point subdivision proposal surrounding the Southport Development site
confirm the aerial map notations of the soil survey with respect to the
clay pit excavations in the "cut and fill land" area across the northern
boundary of the subject site. The nearby test holes also found substan-
tial clay strata remaining in this area.
Any discussion of soil conditions in this area should be considered in-
adequate without a significant number of test holes and careful evaluation
of the resultant data.
Special note of The SEQR Handbook's recommendation that "In general,
accurate sketches, photos, charts and tables should be used wherever
possible to supplement and simplify narrative description" is appropriate.
- 9 -
"Most importantly, graphics should be clear, legible and understandable
to the layman." This entire geology element of the DE IS is textural.
There is not even a topographic map of the area to illustrate the
complexity of the terrain that resulted from the brickyard activity
and the potential extent of the impact of the proposed Southport Develop-
ment on the surrounding properties. Such a map might help locate the
small sections of high and intertidal marsh found on the site and the
existing structural controls "such as bulkheading and riprap".
.
B. Water Resources.: The DEIS report that "depth to ground water on the
subject site varies between 0 to 81, however, fluctuation of up to
several feet can be expected due to percipitation damages" is apparently
a typographic error. The suggested test hole data would certainly help
to establish the ground water elevation at a particular time and could
be further modified by giving consideration to the fluctuation factor
mentioned.
.
The discussion of surface water is incomplete without noting the obvious
fact that the marina is in an embayment off of Southold Bay. Further,
because of its restricted opening into the Southold Bay, tidal flushing
may be limited and that, as a result, cleansing of the embayment waters
may be limited. This raises the question of the impact of activity in
the embayment on all of the shore front properties around the embayment.
What will that impact be?
4.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Transportaion: The Deis presentation with respect to land transport-
ation is found in the attached Exhibit A. Much of this analysis is based
on personal, on-site field observations and supplementary manual traffic
counts. Since the North Folk is a seasonal resort community, it is
important that the reader know when these observations and counts occurr-
ed. It/ere they on summer weekends?
The traffic flow information gathered from the Ne'. York State Department
- 10 -
.
of Transportation establishes the average daily traffic on Route 25
as 7,450 vehicles and the peak weekday hours as 8~00-9:00 A.M. and
4:00-5:00 P.M., according to the text. Examination of that data, which
is included at the end of the report, reveals that it is a partial count
for the week of June 23 through 29 in 1984. It records hourly direction-
al counts for Monday afternoon through Friday morning. It does not in-
clude Friday afternoon through Monday morning, the most active traffic
period on a summer weekend. Through factoring these data the department
derived an annual average daily traffic volume of 7,445. The DE IS
apparently rounde~ this figure up to 7,450. Can the results of such a
partial count and derivation be considered reasonable as the sole source
of information? The average weekday hour data in this same data indicates
that hourly traffic volume, with only infinitesimal exceptions, builds
up from midnight straight tbrough to 4:00-5:00 P.M. in the afternoon. In
general the data for individual days bears this finding out as '"ell.
There is no customary morning peak commuter hour evident in these data.
Since great emphasis is placed on the Saturday peak hour between 4:00-5:00
P.M., on what day of what year was that count taken? Was traffio dis-
tribution by direction on Route 25A determined from this other oount?
When were the available gaps recorded?
.
With reference to the trip generation analysis, it would be helpful to
know more about the actual operation of the Southport Development. For
instances just what character will the principal and supplemental land
uses have? How many employees will they engage? What will be their
hours of operation and when will the employees be arriving and depart-
ing? What sort of service vehicles might be expected? '"hat about
oversized vehicles? There may be more of these if on site open boat
storage is not contemplated or if launching ramp operations are encour-
aged. While it is true that overlapping uses on the site may lead to
multiple purpose trips, there is no evidence in general experience to
suggest that this is a significant factor in the case of marinas,
restaurants and resort-type motels on Long Island.
More specifically, in terms of trip generation rates, what are the
relative rates for marinas, restaurants, resort motels and pool and
- 11 -
tennis clubs? Ir this material is to be evaluated with rererence to
potential elements or the use that need to be reduced in capacity to
decrease trarric generation,the analyst must know which use has which
trip generation rate. There is no evidence presented with reference to
the peak hour trarfic generation for these uses. Are there dirrerent
peak hours or trafric generation projected ror these uses? What are
they? What trarric will be generated by other development on Sage Boulevard?
In analyzing directional distribution two or the guidelines are derived
rrom the trarric counts. What was the anticipated origin and destination
0: the users data derived from?
.
In discussing site generated trarric impact on Sage Boulevard, the DEIS
describes Sage Boulevard as the "primary access" to the site. Aside from
boats, what other access is there? Ir consideration is given to the boat
access which is exclusive or any land access, to what degree was this
considered to be a factor? How was this determined?
.
Examination or access to the site itselr indicates that there are now two
access driveways but that the proposal will only have "one major access
point off of Sage Boulevard". The conceptual site plan shows two access
driveways much the same as the existing ones in terms of location.
What is the dirrerence? The discussion goes on to point out that the
sight distance at this major access point is excellent. What about the
sight distance at the other access driveway which is located within
about 60 reet or the ninety degree change in alignment or Sage Boulevard
to the east?
Despite these more detailed questions, there is one overriding question,
what will be the impact or this commercial trarric on a local street in
a developing low density residential area? Will the residential environ-
ment that existing and future property owners anticipate when they
purchase their homes deteriorate? What will be the impact on Breezy
Shores?
With reference to marine access, the location of the channel is not shown
- 12 -
on any map in the DEIS, where is it? Has there been any projection of
marine traffic generated by Southport Development and by others fronting
on the embayment? This was a particular concern in the Scoping Session.
B. Land Use and Zoning: The Scoping Session expressed concern for land
uses primarily on the Conkling Point peninsula. The DEIS fails to describe
the existing and foreseeable residential development of almost all the
remaining vacant land for standard or clustered residential development.
It also fails to distinguish between the Southport Development site and
the Port of Eygpt site.
.
The comment regarding the current "C" Light Industrial District is not
disputed. Fortunately, SEQR, the special exception use procedure and
site plan approval provide some response to this concern. A similar
concern may also be expressed for the same reasons about any intensive
development. This does not seem to appear in the DEIS presentation.
T!1e reference to the "recently adopted Master Plan" is in error. The
Master Plan is still subject to possible changes after the public hear-
ings are completed. The Master Plan has not been adopted .
.
The proposed Master Plan does state that "Marine-related water-dependent
uses are encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or
along creeks and bays where they do not negatively impact on residential
neighborhoods or the natural environment." It also says that "The Marine
Recreation category is recommended for locations along creeks that have
suitable harbor areas, but less tidal flushing than is possible in bay-
front or soundfront locations." The fact that the Master Plan does show
the South port Development site in the Marine Business category is contra-
dictory to these findings and others expressed in the goals of the Master
Plan. It may be anticipated that this fact will be brought up at the
public hearings which have yet to occur. With respect to the low density
residential category shown over most of the remainder of the Conkling
Point peninsula, the Master Plan states "These low densities are ~artic-
ularly applicable to coastal areas to protect ground and surface waters
and environmentally sensitive portions of the Town including wetlands,
- 13 -
beaches, bluffs and dunes."
Among the Master Plan Goals those associated with the environment include
the following:
"Promote a development pattern that is responsive to
sensitive areas, exhibiting prime agricultural soils,
poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard,
sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and
woodlands.
.
"Maintain and improve water surface q uali ty.
"Maintain and protect finfishing and shell fishing
habitats."
Since the Master Plan has not been through its public hearings or
adDpted,and since the proposed zoning regulations are designed to
implement the Master Plan, it is premature to consider them in any
detail at this time.
.
D. Demography: The Scoping Session found that,although this is a minor
item, some information should be provided about the users. With a
commercial land use this would include employees as well as transient
residents, diners and service personnel. Also with reference to
commercial developments, it is important to know the time periods
during which such people are on the premises. None of this is provided.
E. Cultural Resources: The Scoping Session notes include a presentation
with respect to noise: existing and proposed uses and noise impact.
There is none.
5.
V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following factors in the environmental settings have not been
- 14 -
adequately addressed:
Surface waters
Adverse Impact
Ponding surface water due to
impermeability of soil
Inadequate potential for structural
solutions for storm water and
sanitary sewage disposal systems
due to poor soil characteristics
Fuel tank, structure and building
settlement due to soil character-
istics
Disposition of poor quality dredge
spoils due to unsuitability for
use as upland surface soil supple-
ment, dune enhancement or wetland
resource material
Inadequate quantities of supplement-
ary soils for grading due to poor
soil characteristics
Private well draw down of limited
groundwater resource leading to
possible salt water intrusion
(this was an element in the
Scoping Session outline but not
included in the DEIS)
Pollution of resource as a result
of discharge from storm water
and sanitary sewage disposal
systems
Lack of adequate tidal flushing of
embayment to accommodate in-
creased activity and larger
vessels
Doubtful potential for creating
effective biological filtration
Setting
Soils
.
Topography
Groundwater
.
- 15 -
.
systems due to character of
dredging spoils and existing
surface soils
Vegetation
Potential permanent loss of 7,000 s.f.
of HM and 1M areas
Potential permanent loss of 7,000 s.f.
of HM and 1M areas
Wetlands
Transportation
Deterioration of residential character
.
of local road usage
Increased trailered boats and oversize
vehicle traffic and consequent
impact on residential local road
improvements
Increased marine traffic and potential
congestion in channel and em bay-
ment areas
Zoning and land use
Overintensive land utilization as a
result of at least three principal
.
uses in an environmentally sensitive
residential neighborhood
If constructed anyone of these
principal uses might prove to be
economically infeasible leading
to pressure for a more intensive
and/or less attractive reuse in
this residential neighborhood*
Exposure of property improvements,
including utility systems, to
flood hazards
Need for zoning regulation amendment
to permit 125 seat restaurant
Pressure for zoning variances part-
icularly to permit greater signage
Outdoor area lighting on both land
and water
*
This case is made in this very DEIS with reference to the existing use
on the site - see Alternatives.
- 16 -
Community services
and cultural Resouces
.
.
.
Compatibility of 288 parked cars and
other vehicles in a residential
neighborhood and across property
lines from residence sites.
Increased noise levels and nighttime
activity on both land and water
areas
Increased need for police protection
Increased need for monitoring marine
traffic, marine security and water
quality
Deterioration of existing and potential
residential neighborhood environment
and property values
Disposal of demolition debris (this
was an element in the Scoping
Session outline but not included
in the DEIS)
Potential increased demand for seasonal
employees and housing for them
rather than employment for year
round residents
Visual impact of commercial uses and
activities and outdoor lighting
6.
VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Geology: According to the Survey of Soils the Southport Development
site's upland area is almost entirely "made land". The DE IS describes
the topography as "generally level with slopes descending towards the
basin and bay" with average elevation of approximately 8 feet above mean
sea level. Considering these factors and the need to observe flood plain
zoning regulation, the potential for regrading to "create aesthetically
pleasing land forms to screen undesirable views (Ed. Not previously
disclosed or located either on or off the site) and add interest, diversity,
- 17 -
and views on a presently monotonous site" certainly needs clarification
and amplification. The conceptual site plan and missing topographic map
are no help in this matter.
B. Water Resources: With respect to ground water, the mitigating
measure merely recites the standards the sponsor will have to meet if
conditions on the subject site actually permit them to be met. There
is no evidence presented in the DEIS to the effect that the subject site
conditions do in fact permit them to be met. Some sites cannot accommodate
any and every use as a result of technological modifications. This could
well be one of them.
.
.
In connection with surface water, no mention is made of restricting
marina activities in any fashion, nor is any mention made of pump-out
station facilities. The question of storm water and sanitary sewage
disposal system adequacy also applies to this subject.
7.
VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN RESOURCES
.
A. Transoortation: Since the DEIS fails to find any adverse impacts in
this area, it does not propose any mitigating measures. This is inadequate
on its face considering the questions of adverse impact raised in this
analysis and also in the Scoping Session.
B. Land Use and Zoning: The mitigating measures proposed in this element
include a change in the existing plans for the Town of Southold based on
an as yet unadopted Master Plan which is only now reaching the pUblic
hearing stage which would lead to adoption. Whereas the existing "C"
Light Industrial District admittedly permits many undesirable uses on its
face, it is not admitted that all such uses at any intensity could
survive the review and approval that must be endured. Specifically, it
should be noted that the existing comprehensive zoning plan has apparently
led to the designation of for-profit marinas, boat yards and similar marine
uses as "C" Light Industrial Districts. Thus it screens out essentially
- 18 -
all non-marine retail uses and requires all other uses except commercial
agricultural operations and town owned and operated buildings, structures
and uses to go through the three review and approval procedures as special
exception uses.
.
The proposed new uses include motel which is not permitted under the
existing comprehensive zoning plan. It may be noted here that there is
no equivalent district to the proposed M-1 General Multiple-Residence
District in the proposed zoning. It is assumed that the sponsor, faced
with the proposed ordinance, would seek either the Marine Recreation or Marine
.
Business District designation. Interestingly, neither of these districts,
if adopted as proposed, permit motels or restaurants as a matter of right.
It would require the three step review and approval procedure as a special
exception for either one. It must be concluded that these uses have
critical characteristics in terms of the Town of Southold"s existing
comprehensive zoning plan and even of its as yet unadopted plan.
Any discussion of the state's 44 CZM policies and of area market. demand
can only provide a very general background when dealing wit.h a specific
site. They cannot be considered persuasive where there is no supportive
local CZM policy as yet nor any other adopted local plan.
.
D. Cultural Resources: The mitigating measures offered relate t.o some
good and some doubt.ful perceived beneficial impacts. There are no
measures related to visual impact of commercial use with signage and
outdoor area lighting, nighttime activity on both land and water areas,
need for increase police protection, marine patrol and monitoring, the
potential increased demand for seasonal employees and housing for them
contrasted to year round resident employment, the disposal of unsuitable
soils and demolition debris, and the deterioration of existing and potential
residential neighborhood environmental and property values.
8.
VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Most of the adverse environmental impacts recorded here as unavoidable
.
.
have not been discussed in the DEIS prior to this section. Further,
the text does not consider dredging, which was listed in the Scoping
Session outline, as unavoidable.
Finally, even with a degree of mitigation of many of its aspects, if the
proposed over intensive commercial development was to be injected into
this residential neighborhood, it must be considered to have an adverse
impact.
9.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES
This entire discussion of alternatives is obviously inadequate and
incomplete with reference to the requirements of the Scoping Session
outline. It is clearly not in accordance with the standard that "Discussion
of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a oompara-
tive assessment of costs, benefits and the environmental risks for each
alternative" as described in The SEQR Handbook.
10.
IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
It should be recorded here that the community will also face further
erosion of the neighborhood's residential character and deterioration
of surface water quality in the embayment.
11.
X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
This section of the DEIS has not responded to any of the Scoping Session's
items. In many ways the earlier lack of any demographic or detailed
surrounding land use presentation makes it almost impossible to prepare
a complete statement of this Southport Development project's growth
inducing aspects.
- 20 -
FREDERICK H. REUTER. AIC?
Planning and Zoning Consulranr
1 OJO F cresr Hi II I',ood
HendersonVlile. NC. 287J9
(704) 692.7104
G~NERAL BACKGROUND
:!'"'ederick E. RF:uter, AlC?, has e:1~3.ge::. ir. plaiJ.!1ing and
zo~i~~ consultatio~ since 1950.
U~~i: Au~ust of 1934 he was
active as the principal of the firm of ~!cCrosky-Reuter.
Ei.s
IO~:7ler
~artner,
Theodore T.
~cCrosky,
founded McCrosky-
.
Reuter's predecessor firm, Theodore T. ~cCrcsky, Consulting
~ngl~eer, in 1950. Both practices were located i~ :he Ne~
York ~e~ropolitan 2~ea.
i"!r
2euter's =ci1.sult~i1.6 pr~c~ice
serves Cl~:C associations
Driva~e ir.d.::..v.::..duals, bUs_il2sses
and
~ . .
::r~: :;53:0:12..:..
f:r~s as ~el~ as
:Ju':;l.:..c
ar.c
ir:sti::'~l::.i'Jnal
c112::'"".':.5.
?rojects have :re~ue~tly invol'ied tea~work with o:.her
pr~:essiO~2ls ~~ such f:~ld3 as a~ch:~22~~~S. E~6i~e2~i~~.
e~vi~c~rne~tal sciences, ~a~! ~eal e3~a:2 a~d sosialogy.
:~2 ccn~ex~ of coc~u~i~j projec:s
~-=aI:1',.,rQrx 0::''':'''50
.
i~vclved the cQm~U~i~j!3 of~iciais. s~a~~ a~d a:her co~sul~-
:':>;,0::
-.. ~ - .
:ha~act2~istically the scope of t~2se cons~lti~g
services range frem p~ofessional opi~icns or expert w::~ess
rC;..;..22
co~~lete ~as~er plan progr~~s.
zO~lng ordina~~es
c:~~u~i:y development proerams ana cSJe~:~~ent ~rcj~?c:s
so~e ~~= :v~ica: day-~o-day c~eratic~a: ~lanni~g services
~nl..:...e c:~e~s a~e ~ajor ~n depth studies
;;"e':::2:->ick
Reu:e:,'s
o I:::...C e
~c-..;
, ~
". . ~ ~
::encersor:'/l..:....;...2
~:,Jr:~~
~a~'c...:...:!.r:a.
bu: he a130 ~~intai~3
_i~:.:~,j
::::-:-:~ c '2
3.':
- ., .~.
:JU
~ - c- ,_ ,....
--..;..."-,,=> -'..
.~ 'ie n 1J. '2
:tle3t.bur~.; ,
]2'..;
'!::::,~,
C:C:.:U~'1'_-:'Ci':::n
wi:~ S~:::~2~ Assccis.:es.
T~a :elep~c~'2 ~~~je~ ~~'2re
rS )
e~2-.g233.
CO~SULTI\G SERVICES
Comprehensi,,-e or master plans for communities and reglons
Capital inprovement programming and preparation of long
range fi~anciJl programs
=oning ordinances', subdivision regulations ana similar
development regulations
.
Communitv development programs and rehabilitation
.
Continuing planning and renewal advisory services
Site selection; development and subdivision plans
Jemograpl1ic, economic and land use a~alyses and projections
Traf~ic and parking surveys, analyses and solutions
School enrol:ment forecasts and development programs
=conomlC analyses of shopping centers, industrial parks
a~c similar facilities
~~\-ironmental evaluations and impact studies
.
~xpert testi~o~y, in\-estigations and reports
CLIENTS IN RECENT YEARS
Several of these McCrosky-Reuter clients continue to
be served by Frederick H. Reuter, AlC? These a3sig~ments
reflect much of the scope of services that are 2;ailable
:'0 his clients.
?~J3~=C CLIE:ITS
.
Jarriscn (Town/Village) - Halstead Avenue/Harrison Avenue
Business Vi strict Marketability
Study, Development Plan and
Public I~provement ?lan with
Economic Research Assccia~es
Community Development 310ck Grant
Applications for 1982 t~rough
1985
~a3:' Williston (Village)- New Zoning Crdinance a~G Land Sub-
division Regulatio~s
~empstead (Village)
- Intermoeal transportation ce~ter,
subcontractor to Storch Associates
fer land use, planning and zon-
ing a:lalysis
~awrence (Villag~)
Apa~tme~: pl~nni~g a~c 30~i~g study~
plan~ing and zc~i~g ~ec8mmend-
aticr:s
.
~a3~ Hampton (:c~n)
Master ?~~n upda:e: ho~sing~ traffic
and i~:~~s:~uc~ure el~me~~s i~
coopera:ion wi:h the Town Planning
Departme~t staff; envir8~mental
assess~ent 0: the ~ousi~g e:ement;
evalu2~ion of resert mo:el zoning
co~ce~:s and propos2c text
:ys:e~ Bay (Town)
- Expert tes:i~ony in the Supre~e
Court on p:anning 2~d zoning
~ag ~arbor (~il~age)
- ~ocal ~a:er:rQnt rtevi:alization
Program Plan (C~?)
New Zoni~~ Crdina~ce
?ark fundi~g applications (L~C~)
S=ni:.htown
( ~~"- \
J..'",'o'I;;:
Business district deve:o~~en: p:ans
fer :~e ~ins3 ?ark and St. James
CCT.P.1U~:..:ie3
?UBLIC CLIENTS ( Continued )
S2l~aire (Village)
- Study of potential funding programs
Application for a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program funding
Expert test:mo~y on planning and
zoning
Sout~ampton (Village)
- Comprehensive planning st~dies and
Updated Master Plan and zoning
recom~end2~ions
Upper Srookville
(,illage)
Comprehensive planning studies and
Updated Mas&er Plan
Expert testiT.ony in Supreme Court
on planning and zoning
.
~e3tha~pton Beach
(Village)
- Comprehensive planning studies,
Master ?~~~ and Zoning Ordinance,
includ:ng :locd plain zcr.:ng
Local Wat2r:rcn~ Revitalizat:on
?rogram ?la~ (eM?)
.
CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS. INSTITUTION AND PRIVATE CLIENTS
A. D. H Realty Cor?
Bar8ash/~cGovern
.
E~ookville Taxpayers
A3E8cia~ion
Cen~u~y Ciruit, ~nc.
Co~mi~~e2 ~c Save Good
Ground ~ater
.
~a3~ ~oric~es Civic
A3socia~i8n
Grej~ound Bus Company
Planning. fina~cial and zoning
analysis in preparation for a
change of zone application to
permit the adaptive reuse 0:
Kahn's Castle for residential
condominiu~s in the Town of
Huntington
- Planning and zoning qnalysis for
a change of zor.e to permit the
construction of a Marriott Hotel
on Pinelawn Road at the Long
Island Expressway in the Town
of Huntington
- ~xpert test~~ony in tne Supreme
Court on plan~ing a~d zoning
Analysis of the c~mpatibility
0: a proposed :ree standing
theater sign in the Plainview
Shopping Center in the Town
of Oys~er Bay
- A~alysis of e~J:~Qn~ental impact
of a p~o~osed m2jo~ subdiv:sion
a~d to'~n sp8nso~~j upzoning
of the ~ec CreeK area of ~he
Town of Scu~t2~pton
- Planning ar.2 z~ning analysis 2nd
expert ~es~:T.or.y cpoosing an
a~plicaticn for s cnanse of
zone district ~o permit a mo~el
use in the Tow~ of 3~ookhaven
?~aDni~g and =:~i~~ ~nS~j3:s 0:
a proposed ~~ejr.ound Tr~ve~
Center a~ t~e i~~ersec~ion cf
the Long Is:and Expressway a~d
the Motor ?ark~a! in the Town
of :S::0
~n3~r~~en~s Systems Ccrp.-A~alysis o~ ~~;e :e3: develo~~er.:
pc~enti21 c: an :SC vacan: si:e
a: ~~nti~g~~~ Sts:::r. in tje
Town cf ._~~~i~g:~~
o
CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, INSTITUTION AND ~~IVATE CLIESTS (Continued)
?:A~CO
Lincoln Savings 3ank
.
.
Lo~g Islanc University
c. r,v. P-Jst Ce:1ter
~ew Yor~ I~S:tU~2 of
ie'.::hnolog:i
~c~~n Shore At~ium
AS:SCC2.2t.es
.
Save Three ~i:e Harbor
Com~ittee
Stop t~e Air~or~
CO:TI::1.:ttee
Traffic and parking analysis related
to the application for the Haupp-
auge Ramada Inn and Conference
Facility on the Long Island
Expressway and Veterans Memorial
Highway in the Town of Islip
- Planning and zoning a~21Jsis relate~
to an application for a special
permit to relocate and expand a
drive-in banking facility
- Prepare a Draft and Final Enviror.-
mental Impact Statements, planning
and zoning analysis anc expert
test:~cny related to a special
permit to expand ~~eca::1~us into
the Village of o:c ~estburj
Planning a~21ysi3 rels~2~ to a~
a~pl~c2~io~ to inc~ease ~he heigh~
of a proposed new juilding beyond
a ccve~a~t rest~:c~ion in the
Village 0: O~d ~estou~y
- Planning anj zoning analj5is ~elatec
. -
to 2. c.'1a:-:ge or
office buiiding
of Oyste:> =.2.}'
pe:'::J.i::.
....,."",.., '" - ~
..... '........ - '-' ,-,'
on
::":1 :.ne
'T",..,......
.l. U IV.j
?lan~in~ and zoning 2.~2.~y~is rea~ed
to opposing a propJsec ~otel 3i~e
in the 70wn o~ ~ast 3a~pton
Planning and zoning ar.alysis related
~o opposing the proposed Riverhead
Ai~park in the T8wn of Riverhead
- 4 -
FREDERIC~ H. REUTER
.
CommUllity and Regional Planning COIlSllltant
.
EDUCATIO\.\L A\D PROFESSIO\AL A~~ll[ATiO\S
E.iuca::ion
Coynell Urliversit~- -- 103S-10~O and 19~6-
1 ':1 -+ S l (: 0 11 r s e L n t e r ~~U~) t e d h;- r:1 i 1 ita r;: ~ e r-
\- ice} B. .-\ r c h . 1 ~J -+ 8
:.lassachl1~etts Instit~~te of Technology
\laster 0: City Pl::1nnir:.g, l~'lSC!
Lic'~':1ses
\e~ York -- Registered .\rcllitect \0. 6o~~J
\e~( Jerse)" -- Professional PlanIler \0. 51:
S'JC i_et i~~_-;
-American Institute of Certified r13n~ers
-A~erican Institute of Arcl1itects
-"[all Beta Pi (llonol'~!':.- engineering~
-Gargo\-le (honaral'\' arc~itecture)
L'l.,.,;-l-...., 'In)lr-, ()1ono' l"~-""\' 1'('1"1 01-0'"O"TI~1l'---'1
- '.-".11 L. L:.~,,- .--\ l . ,-c :" . L<.L .. c. 'U '- '- ..1, .1. _.. '-:::- .
-Urban Land Institute
.
PROFESSIO\AL EXPERIE\CE
1.16 ~-
,('.:; 'I
::"'-"1'
Prc;-;rietor,
C0:1sult3nts
\lcCro::.\>-- ?e~lteT,
Plann in,':';
L' " : - 19 6 6
Partner, ~lcCrosk>'-ReLt!el~, Plannin.g
Consultants
1 ) ~ -
l .... -,
'~ () -
.\~ 5 :JC i ate Fa l'tner, 1. L. \lcCl'O_":: k
::- ~lll.:::' n 'lS
CC:1-
1953-1957
Senior Regional and Community Planner,
T. T. ~cCrosky, Consulting Engineers,
acted as planning director for the Town
of Smithtown, Suffolk County, ~ew York
1951-1053
Principal Planner, ~cHugh and McCrosky
1947, 1943
and 1950
Planning Engineer, ~assau County Plan-
ning Department, special responsibility
for population forecasting and land use
survey and analysis
19-19
Resident Planner, South Charleston, West
. Virginia, for John 1-1. '.Iuddeman and Asso-
ciates, Planning Consultant
.
19-16
Eggers and Higgins, architectural and
engineering work
19-1>19-16
U. S. Armv, Corps ot engineers, private
to captain: Company commander with field
sunervision of theater 0= onerations con-
struction in Europe and the-Pacific
19-11-1942
Jr. architectural engineer, Krey and Hunt,
Consulting Engineers; Caribbean Architects-
Engineers, and other firms.
.
CLIENTS OF McCROSKY-REUTER
Community Clients:
Complete Comprehensive or Master Plan Programs. including
Surveys and Analyses, Plans, Zoning and Subdivision Regula-
tions and Capital Improvement Program:
.
Calverack (Town), :i.Y.
Collins (Town), N.Y.
Concord (Town..), N.Y.
Harrison (Town), N.Y.
Highlands fTown) , N.Y.
Highland Falls (Village), N. Y.
Honeoye Falls, (Village), N. Y.
;,laybrook (Village), N. Y.
"endon (TO\,-n), N.Y.
"ontgornery (Town and Village), :i.Y.
Newfane (Town), N.Y.
Onondoga (Town), N.Y.
OSl,vego, (ei ty), N. Y.
Paramus (Borough), N.J.
Perrysburg (Town and Village), N.Y.
Philmont (Village), N.Y.
Port Chester (Village), N.Y.
Quogue (Village), N.Y.
Riverhead (Town), N.Y.
Scottsville (Village), N. Y.
Southanpton (T01vn and Village), N.Y.
Spring,-ille (Village), N. Y.
lSalden (Village), N. Y.
Wheatland (Town), N.Y.
.
Community Development Programs and Housing Assistance Plans
and Related Program Consultation:
Oswego (City), N.Y.
Riverhead (Town), N.Y.
TY2ffic and Parking:
Garden City (Village), N.Y.
Irvington (Town), N.J.
Stamford (City), Conn.
:oning Ordinances:
Monroe County, N.Y. (Rochester Airport Zoning Analyses
and Regulation)
NeH Britain (City), Conn.
Thomaston (Village), N.Y.
Urban ReneHal Studies:
Huntington (Town), N.Y.
Islip (ToHn), :i.Y.
Lindenhurst (Village), ),I.Y.
OSHego (City), N.Y.
Stamford (City), Conn.
.
School District.Forecasts and Development Programs:
Greece Central School District No. I, N.Y.
Gates-Chili Central School District, ),I.Y.
Gther Speciali=ed Projects:
Plair.ville (Town), Conn. (Subdivision Development
Analysis and Regulation)
\I"ayne County, N. Y. (Pre limina rv Overall Economi c
Development Program)
Village 0::: Port liashington ),Iorth and Baxter Estates,
),I.Y. (Shoreline Preservation Plan)
Village of Port Washington ),Iorth, :i.Y. Planning and
:oning Study - for undeveloped area)
Professional Firms Clients:
.
Cannon, Thiele, Bet=, Cannon, Schackleton and Fit=-
gerald, Architects (Craig Colony Master Plan, N.Y.S.
Depart2ent of )[ental Health;
George Dia~ond, Architect (Dehli Institue, N.Y.S.
University Construction Fund)
Faragher and Macomber, Architects (Alfred Institute,
N.Y.S. University Construction Fund)
Francis X. Gina, Architect (Oneonta College, N.Y.S.
University Construction Fund)
James D. Landauer Associates, Inc., Real Estate Con-
sultants
I.M. Pei, Architects (Fredonia College, N.Y.S. Univer-
sitv Construction Fund)
Seelye Stevenson Value and Knecht, Consulting Engineers
(Northwest Quadrant Comprehensive Sewer Study,
Monroe County, N.Y., and Millstone Comprehensive
<';e'"er c~'ud"" 'j J )
".'J ~ l.. ," _". .
Snith, Smith, Haines and Lundburg, Architects (Stonv
3rook Uni~eTsity, \.Y.S. University Construction
Fund)
Private and Institutional Clients:
Kaufman and Broad
Litwin and Swarzman
~ew York City Stock Exchange Building Corporation and
Sol G. Atlas, Builder
~.Y.S. Mental Hygiene Facilities Improvement Fund (as
consultant to Cannon, Thiele, Betz, Cannon, Schackle-
ton, Fitzgerald, Architects - Engineers)
~.Y.S. University Construction Fund (as consultants to
various architects on five campuses)
~ew York Telephone Company
Northport Boatyard
Otto J. Paparazzo
Pepsico
Webb and Knapp
.
.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEIS FOR A ZONING CHANGE
FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHOLD BAY,
SOUTHOLD TOWN, NEW YORK
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
.
prepared:
by:
January 15, 1986
Larry Penny
Environmental Analyst
450 Noyac Road
Sag Harbor, NY 11963
INTRODUCTION
.
I have reviewed the proposed facility - motel,
restaurant, marina, and boat maintenance complex -
requiring the zoning change sought by the site's owners
and carefully read and evaluated the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement- (DEIS) written in support of such
project and z~ning change. My focus in this evaluation
has been on environmental concerns, namely groundwater
resources, site topography and stratigraphy, fisheries
resources, surface waters, and alternatives.
Suffice it
.
to say that there are other environmental concerns (air
pollution, etc.', but I have chose to treat only those
imminently impacted by the proposed action. The
outstanding deficiency in the DEIS is its complete lack
of critical information, or data base, on those
paramount environmental parameters (water quality, fish
stocks, habitat types, and the like), existing and to be
applied, by which the magnitude of the impacts can be
measured and risks to the environment evaluated.
It is
safe to say that anyone of the principal uses proposed,
taken separately, could substantially degrade the
environment. Taken together, in the absence of
meaningful and practical mitigation, they represent a
-1-
grave threat.
Certainly, it can not at all be said,
from a reading of this OEIS (p. 36), that
Lastly, the zoning change will remove the
potential threat of environmental pollution
and improve the visual characteristics of the
site,
as will be pointed out in the sections that follow.
.
S~TE TOPOGRAPHY/STRATIGRAPHY
A. Topography.
The site is essentially an island, water off of
which drains down slope all around into adjacent surface
waters and wetlands.
Greater attention to topography is
needed in light of coverage and runoff surface increases
to be part and parcel of this project. This is
particularly true because of severe site limitations
.
(high water table, questionable soils and subsoils) as
far as handling stormwater.
Inasmuch as only a fraction
(ca. 1000 cubic yards) of the projected 17,000 cubic
yards of dredge materials can be incorporated (at most)
into the small marsh rebuilding project, it is presumed
that the remainder will need to be used on site.
This
-2-
.
amounts to a pile of spoil 125 yards by 125 yards which
would raise 37% of the upland portion of the site by one
yard in elevation. or the entire site by more than one
foot (not counting upland excavation materials to be
added to this volume). We need to see how the
topography of the site will be so changed. Elevating
this site in relation to others around the basin will
effect floodi~g potential during storm tide conditions
on lower lying sites.
B. Stratigraphy.
The specific nature of the made (Ma) land and
cut-and-fill soils and subsoils on the site must be
elucidated before decisions on the appropriateness of
this site for the proposed complex can be wisely made.
There are no soil borings or soil and subsoil
composition breakdowns provided. We have no depth to
groundwater data (it has been estimated) available. The
site's present substrates will be used to structurally
and functionally interact with spoils to serve a variety
of very important purposes (effluent percolation, storm
drainage, vegetation management and the like), yet we
know almost nothing about them.
.
-3-
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
.
A. Water Use.
The DEIS seriously underestimates water use -
13,300 gallons per day (gpd) during peak. Using
Greenport Water District figures (see Suffolk County
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Phase I.
(Draft), Appendix E.) of 110.8 gal. per. capita per day
in the Greenport Water District, the projected water use
(a conservative figure) for the proposed complex will be
27,250 gpd, or 2.5% of the Water District's summer
pumpage, a significant single-source increase on a
district that is already quality stressed, especially
during the summer. On the basis of motel water use
considered separately, the 82 units will conservatively
generate 225 gpd of usage per unit during peak times, or
at least 18,500 gpd. When you add up all of the
non-motel uses to the motel units' use, it is very
possible that on the order of 30,000 gpd will be used by
this project at full operation. In terms of resource
cost to the water district, all of this use will be
consumptive, the water will be lost to the potable water
supply from which account the district must draw. This
net loss amounts to Some 1.67 to 2.45 million gallons
.
-4-
.
during the critical 90 day period, June through August,
when figured on motel use alone or total use.
Obviously, the DEIS has not properly evaluated the
project's impacts on the area's groundwater resources.
The proposed use of private well(s) to account for
secondary water uses (boat washing and the like) does
not take into account the strong probability of
entraining contaminants from the site's aquifer which
will become increasingly quality stressed from the
complex's upland activities. There will be then the
increased liklihood of facilitating the spread of this
contamination into adjacent surface waters.
Such
.
pumping from on-site sources will also affect the
groundwater flow regime which could exacerbate impacts
vis-a-vis underflow into these surface waters.
B. Subsurface Flow.
The DEIS suggests that the subsurface flow of
groundwater (and entrained effluent) on the site will be
to the south and southeast (p.16) without providing any
hydrogeological data, empirical or modelled, upon which
to base this pronouncement. It is almost a certainty
that part of the subsurface flow is to the basin, as
well as the Southold Bay. In either case effluent from
the project entrained in this flow will move into
-5-
.
adjacent surface waters and will have an impact there
(see fISHERIES BIOLOGY and SURFACE wATER sections,
elsewhere in this report). we need to know much more
about the parameters which shape sub-surface flow, ie.,
the composition of soil and subsoils, the elevations
after completion, the situation of the leaching pools
and leaching fie~ds associated with the complex, the
water use and. secondary recharge volumes and more.
Mitigation can only be based on a complete knowledge of
these parameters of which so little is actually made
part of the DEIS.
.
C. Effluents.
The nature and volume of the effluent to be
generated by this project and the kinds and amounts of
other liquid wastes to be produced (pool wastes, boat
wastes) has not been evaluated. The potential impacts
on surface waters and fisheries resources evaluated
elsewhere in this report are very great. We need to
know the composition and amounts of these various waste
water products. The outstanding contribution to liquid
waste will be made by the motel and restaurant parts of
the project. We need to know more about how effective
the proposed dentrification system will be in treating
-6-
.
such diverse wastes, especially in the case where the
peak volu~es anticipated will clearly exceed those
projected in the DEIS. It may well be that the
denitrification system except for some nitrate removal,
will be unable to adequately treat these volumes and
waste stream components and that a larger system (e.g.
tertiary treatm~nt plant) will be needed. It would be
an absolute oetastrophe to nearby surface waters if tne
treatment facility is undersized, if it is not proper in
this situation and is placed near the water table where
its products co-mingle with the groundwater. The
inefficient and only partial treatment of wastewater
effluent will lead to the destruction of the fisheries
resources in the vicinity of the project. This kind of
impact from poorly treated effluents has already been
realized in several surface waters of Long Island and
has been of great harm to recreational and commercial
fisheries located therein.
.
FISHERIES RESOURCES
THe fisheries resources of the subject basin and
Southold Bay stand to be impacted significantly by the
proposed motel-restaurant-marina complex in a number of
ways, none of which have been satisfactorily addressed
-7-
.....
.
by the applicant.
A. Shellfish Contamination
The geneeation of wastewatee will add consideeably
to contamination of the sUeface watees of the basin and
Southold Bay ovec peesent levels. Watee use will
peobably exceed 25,000 gallons pee day ducing the summee
peak peeiod. On~y a feaction of this watee will be
geneeated on ~ite. It is a well known fact that boat
wastes feom commeecial and/Oe eesidential vessels aee
eesponsible fOe extensive sUeface watee contamination.
The inceeased contamination fcom opeeation of the
complex is of two soueces, miceobial and chemical.
1. Miceobial. Active maeinas aee always likely
candidates fOe high levels of sUeface watee miceobes
atteibutable to human causes. Colifoem counts in
laege-boat marina waters so often exceed US FDA
standards that the soon forthcoming manual on
shellfish sanitation, governing criteria upon which
sUeface waters will be ceetified or decertified with
eespect to shellfish taking, will recommend
deceetifying many maeina waters. Attached to this
eeport, for example, aee 1985 summee readings for
marinas in Three Mile Harbor, East Hampton Town, which
.
-8-
.
grossly exceed coliform standards and which have moved
the New York State DEC to close considerable waters in
that harbor to shellfishing. In practice the provision
for pump-out stations has not led to the effective
diminution of such microbial contamination.
Moreover, the microbes from such hot spots of
contamination can spread to peripheral waters leading
to their cl~sure, as well. In the long term, as a
result of chronically high coliform levels generated
by a string of coastal nodes, a long stretch of
coastal waters can be contaminated to the point where
they are decertified. This is precisely what has
happened in Three Mile Harbor recently and in Great
South Bay and numerous other Long Island waters in the
past.
Very few waters once decertified are
.
recertified; the long-term trend is evident, on long
Island and elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, more
and more coastal waters are closed to shellfishing.
Certainly, not all of the enhanced microbial
levels in the subject coastal waters will be
attributable to boat wastes. There is a gathering
body of evidence that runoff and septic outflow will
also contribute considerably to these levels. In
terms of effluent contributions, the proposed project
-9-
.
.
will generate more than 20,000 gpd of effluent nuring
the peak summer months. Because of the questionable
nature of the leachinq soils, the hiqh water table and
tbe proximity of the upland uses of the site to
surface waters, the probability for movement of
wicrobes into basin waters and Southold Bay waters is
high. This probahilitv is, of course, hiqhest for
viral part~cles, which are considerably smaller than
bacteria and thus much ~ore ~ohile in subsurface
substrates.
The ~itiqation measures to be orovided in the form
of pump-out stations, storm water runoff system,
~enitr;fication system, and other lesser ~easures
( e.g.
recreation of wetlands) will not necessarily
.
provide the mitiqative relief prOposed or reauired.
The runoff system is dependent on the availability
of orOper soils and subsoils - to date we have no
actual boring records to analyze, no soil samples to
evaluate, the storw water svstem is Durely conceptual
at this point in time. Catchment capacity so close to
the surface waters of Southold Bay is ~ very hiq if
factor, the small amount of marsh to be created is too
thin and too sloDen to be of ~uch use in filtering out
sheet flow to emanate from the site as a result of
-10-
rains and irrigation. The nenitrifica~ion system
propospd may remove nitrates, but it is not designpd
to kill or remove vir'.'ses ann many bactpria. '1'be
efFectiueness of pump-out stations in limiting boat
waste i~pacts re~iains to be demonstrated.
?. Chemical.
'1'he sa~e water uses at~endant to
such an ambitjous oro4ect that will generate
considerable microhial contamination, will also
.
.
produce a great amonnt of chemical wastes: From hoats,
motel grounds, swimming pool, restaurant and boat
maintenance facilities. Of the chemical contaminants
to be qenerated by such a mix of diverse activities
and uses, some may be partially contained by the
so-called storm drainaqe system, the denitrification
system, and pump-out system.
As the storm drain system and percolating soils
.
load up they will leach more and more of these
temporarily impounned chemicals into adjacent surface
waters. The nenitrification system will not only pass
throuqh several chemicals but will add sulphurous and
other chemicals associated with the denitrification
tri'atment.
Many motel maintenance chemicals and
restaurant chemicals (Cleaning agents, pestici~es,
-11-
flooL conditioneLs, and the like) will find their way
into adjacent surface waters, as will chemicals from
the boat maintenance part of the complex.
These
chemical contaminants add up.
Many of them are
extremely harmful to fisheries species, especially to
the spawn of shellfish and finfish.
Others lead to
excesslve phytoplankton production because they
stimulate g~owth or favor contaminant- tolerant
.
species (e.g., blue-green algae) to intolerant ones.
Because the complex of proposed activities and
uses associated with the project under consideration
will synergize during the summer months, the
contamination by microbes and chemicals is sure to be
greateL at that time, ironically, coincident with the
period of maximum shellfish and finfish reproduction.
As in the case of some environmental actions (e.g.
.
dredging) which have time windows which are safer than
others (winter over summer) no such safe time window
.
is possible with the long term activity of the
project, in fact, just the opposite is true. The
window opecative, summec months, will be the worst
possible one for the surface water environment.
The DEIS fails to properly address these impacts.
There is no breakdown of fisheries resources, there is
-12-
----
no elaboration of the products emanating from the
treatment system, there is no analysis of site soils
and subsoils with respect to drainage and subsurface
flow, water use projections are wrong and so on. It
is totally inadequate in this regard and attempts to
cover up this inadequacy with the offering of
mitigation schemes many of which won't work here or
are untested in such situations.
I think we would
.
find that anyone of the proposed uses, practised
intensely (as projected) is capable of serious
degrading of the environment with respect to fisheries
cesources.
The effective mitigation of one may be
possible, of all, highly unlikely.
B. Habitat
1. Dredging.
The dredging of the subject basin
.
to accomodate the expanded marina will surely have
an impact on the fisheries reSOurces using the
basin.
What this impact will be, we have no idea.
Certainly the comment (No.4) made on page 37 of the
0818,
No significant effects are anticipated
for local finfish and shellfish
populations. Harvesting of said resources
may increase in direct proportion to the
number of vessels utilizing the area with
the availability of more berths for said
vessels
-13-
.
has no basis in fact whatsoevec and may be
indicative of the author's inexpertise (see cesume
at end of DEIS) with fisheries biOlogy. We have no
analysis of the habitat of the basin, we know
nothing of the stocks it supports, its primary
productivity represented in aquatic vegetation, its
bottom types and so on. The removal of 17,000 cubic
yards of substrate is no small matter; conversely, a
lacge project, which will remove habitat, deepen
considerably the basin and change bottom topography
dramatically.
It well may be that the end result of this
dredging will be the loss of habitat, the creation
of a sink hole for rotting, accumulating vegetation
and other debris, the creation of a zone of bottom
anoxia inimical to shellfish and finfish stemming
fcom rotting vegetation and debris, the development
of a "dar~ zone" inhibiting submerged aquatic
vegetation because of turbidity, shading from boats
and piers, depth to bottom and increased planktonic
growth. The evaluation of the dredge part of the
proposed project along these lines of investigation
is needed in order to preclude serious habitat
degradation in the future.
.
-14-
.
2. Slips. The desian and construrtion of the
boat herthing facilities should be presented in
nreater detail. The loration of piles and nocks,
especially with respect to basin circulation is of
extreme importance here. Circulation in rhe basin
hinaes upon bottom topoaraphy, basin shape, tidal
channel position an~ the amount of resistance to flow
(boats, do~ks, piles, etc.) manifested in the marina
facility laVol.lt anCl voJ.une. Again, it sboulCl be
pointed out that surface water and habitat degradation
resulting from redl1ced circulation is most prnhable in
the summer months when water temperatures are high,
fisheries production is hgih anr, coincidentally,
marina and human activity is the highest.
STTRFI'.CE WATERS
.
The DEIS prouides no haseline data or reports on
the surface water quality in the basin. We need to know
what the present auality is, particularly, in terms of
microbes. It is stated that the waters of adjacent
Southolrl Bav are "satisfactory" for the takina of
shellfish. We need to see the DEC data upon which this
-15-
-----
.
statement is based, whether it is recent, and whether
serial testing over the years indicates deteriorating
water quality. Armed with such test results we would be
able to project the probable degree and time course of
further degradation, to result mainly from this project,
but also from the development of adjacent upland areas.
we are esepcially concerned here with increases in f,acal
and total colrform counts over time as well as
degradation vis-a-vis chemical inputs from effluents and
runoff (see FISHERIES RESOURCES section, above, for
additional remarks on this subject).
ALTERNATIVES.
.
In addition to the "no-action" alternative, or
development under the "C Light Industrial" zoning,
presented in the DEIS, the only other alternative given
concerns itself with single-family residential use,
which alternative is preemptorily dismissed as being
economically unviable. Certainly this last finding,
without evidence, is dubious. In terms of satisfying
SEQRA provisions with respect to providing meaningful
alternatives, this section is wholly inadequate.
In terms of the statement on page 6 that,
-16-
the zoning change will remove the potential
threat of environmental pollution and improve
the visual characteristics of the site,
the~e a~e othe~ alte~natives that will offe~ a much
smalle~ potential threat of environmental pollution and
as much if not more visual ~elief.
In fact, except for
heavy indust~y o~ dense~ multi~esidential uses, the
p~oposed p~oject compa~ed to several other viable land
uses in Southald Town in ce~tainly one of the most
.
significant with ~espect to potential th~eatening
impacts.
Not only are impo~tant alte~natives missing, the~e
is no envi~onmental analysis of alte~natives which is
needed to p~operly evaluate them.
This analysis should
pay close attention to the critical envi~onmental
pa~amete~s, impacts on water use, surface waters,
fisheries ~esources, wildlife, flooding, basin bottom,
.
d~ainage and underflow, and site topography and
stratigraphy. The DEIS has not demonstrated that a well
designed "CO use without the excessive wate~ consumption
and effluent flow generated by the subject p~oposal is
not envi~onmentally safer.
-17-
..
CONCLUSION.
The DEIS as submitted does not provide adequate
information upon which can be based informed decisions
on the envirJnmental significance of this project. The
DEIS should be returned to the applicant for correction
and inclusion of the data heretofore omitted.
.
.
.
-18-
Bacteriological Water Quality
- Three Mile Harbor
Shellfish Land Number 15
1985 Data
.
Prepared: September 1985
.
State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
Building Number 40, State University
of New York Campus
Stony Brook, New York 11794
Introduction
It was the intent of this study to evaluate bacteriological water
quality in Three Mile Harbor.
Notes
1. Precipitation data were obtained from this agency's Meteorology Unit
for a rain gauge located in Bridgehamton.
2. Using a three tube MPN test, bacteriological water quality at a station
is acceptable if the median total colifonn MPN/I0Cml is 70 or less and no
more than 10:, of the samples exceed a total colifonn r~PN/loCml of 330; OR
if the median fecal colifonn MPN/I00ml is 14 or less and no more than 10%
of the samples exceed a fecal colifonn MPN/I00m1 of 49.
.
Comments
1. Although the winter data are limited when compared to the summer data,
there is a suggestion t~at water quality is influenced by the season. Water
quality WftS good during March 1985 even after a 1.31 inch rainstonn. However,
during August and September 1985, water quality was unacceptable from Station
5 south and in the vicinity of several of the eastern shore marinas. Hands
Creek is also unacceptable.
2. Portions of Three Mile Harbor must be designated as uncertified at
least during the period April 1 through December 14. If boat waste discharges
were the only recognized problem, a closure from May 15 through October 31
might be adequate but it is not known if the unacceptable water is the result
of human activity along the shoreline during the wann months.
3. It is recommended that water quality be restudied from December through
March to insure that water quality is acceptable during the cold months.
.
...........
, I
~,~~~~~ ~/s '-r/7/~e <"~;~( ~/'.baY _/~/)/ j,'_-
~~~\~~ ~ \ "'~/ //____~;:--G. -<-~/:: _.5
"'~ /~' )\:.:::~~\ \ \ U// Q,:'~~e:~""
(.\ 1\ x" \ \ ~ /11 <:,'?I,~~,
~\O\;' fJ: '0~~"~'~\ \~/-:;:<--:: 5 ,~"'-~;~~(.~~\.~
. 0 c'J 'I/"' II ~~/. ? __.?-...._...
) Q'qllC) 'C:::::::, \ ,,~~ 3 / 'I .'i:' .d"'~~r<'-'~
~)~~~ /<):'''1 ':;'" ...... '- /~ 't'~Llght .~4 r,~;::;::::.;-:'
-~~,..-- -------------...-/ \,,"1,.____ ~ \ ____~ //~.~. ;I ,~....
\ - ,-. '-~- I A ::; '-. L' ./ ., I \'--:-." ~ /' ///" _ : ~-..:~ ....
)~.. =~--_:>.'-, I -'.~ atarges--..___..___-" ~" 'C.~//.. '/\ "'-."'-..'_:'"
/:--:; ~--"- / --~ '. r:. d' ------- .'1 ~., :_
~-,<.~'./ ~~IO ....._~~ Lan Ing ",X~~', ....;:J......._...--.""_.
~( ~:~S' 0' c ;; ~"~~3"~~. " Sam my" Be a c ~-1~~;_;9, .~~...j~,~~~ :..
~\/\...--..,_/ " 1//lO;i'o '" ~'7~_~_-=-_____ ~""':^~ ~\ 1-J,-
~;':-P' ,-0\ ~~ I ("~ '<;";"/-'~~ \........ ~7J _ _ - ~~ "~~---- I hree-POJ~ t.::.8--~~ ~ \~'\: (\\.~
~'.-/,---,~~ Q I +C;Jf::::,y~/'~ - /~~-'-:'-_-:--""""::--:='_=---:-'-\ '\ '-\ MUll ~.'J,:."
~/I'..2J ;-,,, I "" "'-0\' ( ,,~. "''''', .I \ ~ 5 ~ ~ - _ _? ' ~I" ~"",,'. _."
---------- -- / I ,".; I _\.~) -----.0''"'' -; 0 \-"-~~ _,-_ ~___ _ _ _;;:- ,,\, _ ~~. "_"
I-~ _~ ~;. '-'.Z"~:.'.,I 7 - _' '-~ - Trn. r,lat!>. \\. ~"2.-:..,."",_
-, . - ", \9' ,," ---- - ~ ~ - I "".
--~ --., ~ /. I ~"'. ,.1/ ,',.-::---"- - -~ II ,., J~ _'.
:~_-:;v-- 1,,-, \,,- '~~__<--- , l;v;~' ,/~---~?i .. , , --=- -".- ;::, ',.F \' "="' \. ;~.
~ -3)-----~ ~/' o\)/~~ ~'~--:-.,\v~;! ~_'.r-::"::'>--"-;:.-J, _"'"\ \ ~_.. ,
'" "- ---.-' ~/ ' " () " , "::--<::~ -_.....~O. . """"'.
)~ ,-o;~~_, \, ~~\~ '04 ,~l'b-';;;~j"}g'<Y~: :;:c
./-..........
~ "
/' -.~'.
;, (.. ~(,~\:~~~-:='.s~.~~~~r~t""';~~:;!. ,-r;;~ E M I'?:~.'aol!":'6\~:~
o ,-' n -""..---':~ II------~ ~"I , 1r.. ~_ ":,:-,~ \.1
\ - ~ /' ",""--- ------.-:;,::.'/ ~ f~II~: \ ("/ ,-...,...- I
'--~-X~ ,/ ~\,,~~~>, / 09 ,).3-i<;g;,~.o'
.-., ~~ ~::=;-",-.....r:f~..:,,(~~d;HandS Creek 0 R ~\"9(, .. rv ~
---',,,,.'/'/ k~..3 6 _/'~;)D)'o/"" '~::c:.':::'\'~~Q::~_ _--fLandlng H ARB ;q;;;;. <!ii!:v_7'~
- 'r-~. ~o~ I - ~)~~ -~ "j' 1J..,y//4 :/ \;'.l.~'-I
~-?:;:/ "; c""-...:,;'. '(...-< (~~~J8;;' ~O4:, r~\ :\~'.
~ l' ~ 0 ' ",',.' ~-- ..". =>0..,.. " '. :':',;;;;::::r'
~~~ ~C::- ~ >( ~ ~' /. 1,~~0 \I~~-t~.. ~. ':,--- L. /" "j.:~~:..Th
- -'" /", ~ I "~~ 1~91?" ~?c0 ~e;!,::.d '. I, . .",~ .
~~C" "..... \ \, I~ . / ~'c' 2:)1) I">i?~ '23)'1"-::::?" /~ ?'..~/;::-.'7.'.::.' H
-.J .~ / ,/ - ~ _ )) 1( ,;J I,I=-.. . ~!{7(,.4',\ '. "'-c..' _
--- / '----' -' 'il I1II <Sovs/.t1ar or-; ~/::<\ . 10 .' <{-
-SO~ L...;'~I/~""""" ~.~, I ,," /I ~J''''''~4.2 ,'.
~~~~-I_"",~~___-/(i,-Tuf "Ca}t.P//~// 11\)\ 7v-"
~ v ~-",,- ~(7- '-' Y/ --.... I \\ \1', ~ ':~~'<-
,,...... I~-'_~' " ~ - \' ~ ,y~.--:' ';' >S 'If;' I I: ~,\ , I" '. ~_
1-"- '""'-' ~~X '/j,;1 \ G~ p . I/. n\ ~\.. " . I.-.{----..-
~~~~-.-:~~/-JlrU..~ :0/ J'b', ~'< .{ ::'
. -; ,-. - '-, ~:: >~.. Q~::-;::c-jj/2Y, I r;:=-:>>~I_\ . ' . I
l .~I;:>::: ( 'S_-/'\~\ " ~"'~~ j/ ,/0, ~I\;','''' 9 ~ '." ~
- -.... ,-..,.--...'"' ~ ... ,/" \..... Q:-'l' I 1/,,7/ . ~0(":-\,~ Mud '~':xL------:::--
-_o~~~r::..-x,-,,- /'- \. ,,':;)1 \"" r;~ ;;'/< 'o;~~, "-"~' ,-;'"-"--::--
.. '- "- : 1 ':---.....,1 ,- ---- ~ ~~ ~~' ij -- /, ... ~ .._~_, IkY _ ______-
-.....- ./.' \ ~ // --::::=:----- ~Gl'\-:' -~ ;/~, \, ~ ,.' :::f------
- -""...,....- ~, '; - - ':-?,. --I 1< 1/ /- .t..J.73 ~~ _,1/"/- - -K \ _<....j/. ,.;:_ ,_
' /" -: Y"_ "-' / ~~:.\ ',l..)-" ,.- .,.... r--...! ( / ' ':'-~-- ',"r/""'. ~,,' _ ' .'-"4::0 'I.u_>' ,__,-
: c-':-2' \'\- 1/....../ '.\-....''v~/. ~....,~ \ _ V L.C) ~ ": I n\ I~"J 2 /'/0 - ~,~~"j~~ f)'j ,-
-:-, --....../ , "<:c,.." ~\ '-' :'--'''\p Q~r-.:::: /jII""l t..;;;J. - I ."" /' ,...?
,- / ) "..... 1 /"'\ '< ~ . ~r- '\ /__~,I .. ~~;::~ "'/
// ------- ,,-: I '1 : C,,'/>' (- .--"\'~~-~ ~\I.:\ '~~ -k~---t-~'-.- ~/
\ )O/)~)\:}fl~ j}/' o' ~j0~>t.l'~(~1~:r:~~ 'L '$r;~~ :.c~~'
\ ! / ~ _/ j' ( .----" ~ \., ("-:;;::,~'("............ -:: -~.. ,l G.r=;~...~ _
'...'-'-'/ F:'-. ../ ~/'J '" /~ I, /"IO~, v-::.~:l');' \'1" ~ -.;' _ \" ---........ .'~'"
#// M~~ J\~!"\\)' '/ ~".,\,.-:: ,t:.r::...-
~~~a.nd .r'70~kr- /?<:P5" \I(?(/~I'. ".:..; " '1 '. :~.
REVIEW OF ;7.;~ 4"'?~rA1 ~ i !J(~ ~ (1' ~S:=4 ~~z\,: ""-':.~
o me:!ns :!cceptable bacteriologically ?c; ~ \/'L.:'-r,: / ,:~~_ l~-'c,
~.. :--~~~....",~;:;:t~.. ..~."'''~:'},' B.t!';i\ I
'. ~ '" "",-/ '. \ 'c, ';', ., r. 13\' 1.....
~.'. n / .~'&'" ,rge",:,:Ze:.... ..";,j::~"J~:( l -" '.'
:-1 "'-."'l:: Har ", ~~ __ \ '
))\ r-=.J!/ '.' t.;;I 1,..,-;, " ''0..
~ ~~ "/ 't, :/ ;'~.~t .,,~~".".~(
);;::.,~ (~8,\,1 5.;! <-. ;S "~=;:~~:.
.
means unacceptable bacteriologically
IX)
me0ns ~h~r 1~~~ th~n ton ~~mnlo
-
:{</ / ~
/ ~/'.1::.
'd/.c.:?/ -7'/'/ .?/~;f'.-7/1~ ...L/a.-r3/~
.J .
/f'L.Lf>U'J+ 4_1)~/ W~ hn;)k.r Z;d~
"/c:Jn - ~ ~a/ 4,j cr/YJ ~W' ~.?.?' /.>? /
/'
/ "'" /".c;
7cr~
-:!- I' !3:(~~S~
..... "'.....~ I ~......~..,\..~ ~.CG..
c0~
./
I
:<< /,~
~--
/9d5'
r. 18-737
....... ,.. .~..
...&'.a....~ ........~..''-L ..'OG~"
/~r~~ //:/:o. f::r~d/ 8// 4./c.:u'~~yZJa-~
.01 / .".....J / .. .-,-., .
r;-~k/T a/7// \.... ~7c:-/Y)a~ ~a.-~A.....-- .
0~hcJYl - ~ ~d/ ~/...0r/Y7 /Y?~~?J::J//J/
;' ;"
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I 1
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
191
20 I I
2d I
d I
?' :1 I
"",,
24 I
?- 'I
_')1,
261 I L
I
?' 'I
"
r 118-737
..~. i ~<:~.:;:::~~ .<o"c.
/ /7rc~ //:!. c7~YC&~ /T~;/~:/~.?~~',:--- './",-v.h:
...7""4";74"Vr: C?/;7d ~p~c'/n~~y- ~ .
~-h?J/l- - -C:ca/ c:b/'.. /: '/;Y; ~/~A/,,~.:J//)/
/96'S
- I
I
.~
/ 5?-::? 5"
r: I :8.-:"37
~: "'<AU
....."'...... w.~.......u.. ...::>e...
I I
I L
I I
I 1
I !
I I
I I
1 I
I I
, I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
23 II I
21 :1 I I
')::;11 I I
':,
26 !i I
27 ii I
I
I-
I
I
I
".0'..."...
----
RESUME of
Laurence T. Penny
450 Noyac Road
Sag Harbor, NY 11963
(516) 725-4521 (home)
(516) 267-8462
Education
1964-68
University of California
San~a Barbara, CA 93106
Jchthyology Animal Behaviour, Marine
Biology; ARD*
.
1962
Chinuse Language Institute
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132
Mandarin Chinese
1961-64
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132
Biological Sciences; M.A.
1958-59
U.S. Army Langua'Je School (Monterey Inst. of
Foreign Studies)
Monterey, CA 93940
.
Ru ss ia n
1953-57
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14850
Biology, Wildlife Conservation; B.S.
*1 am in the process of reopening my Ph. D candidacy.
I have the guarantees of my major professor and the
Biological Sciences Department that I will be able to
resume my work toward satisfying the dissertational
requirements.
Languages
Russian
Chinese (Mandarin)
French (read only)
Spanish (read only)
-2-
Honors
General Motors Fellowship, 1965, 1966
Carnegie Foundation Fellowship 1962
Selectee, UC Berkeley Teaching Internship
Program (1st year, model program) 1962
President, S.F. State U. Biology Society,
1962-63.
Professional Experience
.
1984-present Natural Resource Director
East Hampton Town
.
1983-present Consultant, Waterfront Revitalization projects,
Sag Harbor and Westhampton Beach
1983-present Consultant to The Group for the South Fork,
Bridgehampton
1983-present Consultant to Nature Conservancy
1983-present
Environmental Planner
East Hampton Town
1982-83
Environmental Consultant
1981
Adjunct Professor, Field Biology and Environ-
mental Courses, Southampton College, L.I.U.
1981
Co-Chairman,
Hampton, NY,
South Fork 201 Study
Southampton, NY
CAC,
East
.
1980-81
Co-Director, peconic Environmental Resource
Center, Inc., Sag Harbor, NY
1980-81
Consultant, Mashomack Master Plan Study, The
Nature Conservancy
1980-81
Consultant to U.S. Attorney
Office, Brooklyn, New York.
Swan Lake Golf Course, Inc.
General, Eastern
RE; U. S. vs.
1980-
Columnist on nature and environlnent, East
Hampton Star, East Hampton, NY
1980
Curator of Collections, Mus. L.I. Natural
Sciences SUNY, Stony Brook, NY
-3-
1979-80
Staff Ecologist and Wetlands Specialist,
Group For The South Fork, Bridgeham~ton, NY
1978-79
Consulting; environmental science ecology,
aquacultJre and fishery science
1974-78
Southampton College ot Long Island University
Southampton, NY 11968
Pro~essor ot Biology and Marine Science:
Field Biology, Ecology, Fishery Science, Marine
~cology, Marine Science, Aquaculture Verte-
brate Zoology, Cell Biology
.
1971-74
Chemeketa Community College
Salem, OR 97303
Instructor (tenured) ot Biological Sciences:
General Biology, General Zoology Anatomy and
Physiology
1970-71
Communitj Environmental Council (a co-founder
of), Santa Barbara CA 93101
Founding Editor: Survival Times, an
environmental monthly, later quarterly (ran
trom 1970-1976)
1969-70
Communi ty School. Inc.
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
.
Teacher: Biology Chinese, Russian Math,
Environmental Science
1968-69
Santa Barbara Collectors, Inc.
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Co-owner, Operator: collecting live marine
specimens for major national aquariums
1968-69
Commerical Fisherman
Santa Barbara, CA
1968
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132
Lecturer: General Zoology (Summer
Appointment)
----
-4-
1967-68
Under-sea Gar-dens, Inc.
Santa 8ar-bar-a, CA
Cur-ator--Collector- of Living Or-ganisms: in
charge of 240,000 gallon flow-thr-ough
aquar-ium
1967-68
Santa 8arbar-a Under-seas Foundation
Santa 8ar-bar-a, CA 93101
.
Co-founder-, Fir-st pr-esident: or-ganize and
jnitiate a not-for-pr-ofit educational services
foundation ser-ving the gr-eater- Santa 8arbar-a
ar-ea and concerning itself with shipboar-d
marine science.
1967-68
Santa 8ar-bar-a Fr-ee School Inc.
Santa 8ar-bar-a, CA
Co-or-ganizer, Teacher-: help star-t and teach
in the fir-st Summerhill-type school in the
U.S. Taught Biology, Psychology, Marine
Science, Russian.
1967-68
University of Califor-nia
Santa Bar-bara. CA
Teaching Assistant:
Ichthtology
8iology, Botany,
.
1962-65
8iological Abstr-acts
Univer-sity of Pennsylvania
Philadephia, PA 19104
Abstr-actor--Tr-anslator-, of two Soviet
jour-nals, Vopr-osy Ikhti<)logii (pr-oblems in
Ichthyology) and Fiziologicheskii Zhur-nal
(Physiological Jour-nal) and par-ts of
Reter-ativnyi Zhurnal (the Soviet equivalent
of Bioabstr-acts)
1962-63
San Fr-ancisco State Univer-sity
San Francisco, CA 94132
Teaching Assistant:
Biology
-5-
1961-65
Systematics Laboratory
U.S. National Museum
Washington, D.C.
Translator: cover-to-cover
about 50 Soviet scientific
biological) publications
translation of
(principally
1958-61
Army Security Agency
U.S. Army, Japan
.
3ranslator-Chryptographer: translation
and decoding of Soviet domestic and military
teleradio communications
.
.., ,.-
A"'\ '\:) <'\
~\ ~"f \
.
(!C: f~K~'1-~~?-tA ~
;&- C~~%L-
.
.
TWOMEY. LATHAM. SHEA & KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P.O. BOX 398
RIVERHEAD. NEW YORK 11901
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. !II
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11937
516+324+1200
516-727-2180
~ECl:iVED
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. UCCIONE
CATRtONA GLAZEBROOK
,IAtl 1 21987
January 8, 1987
'ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
TnWf'l (:1......1, 'f'Ulthold
Town Board
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Master Plan Update/Sag Cove
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
On behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn, I
wrote to the Board on November 18, 1986, reiterating our
request that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement be
prepared on the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Code
prior to its adoption given the significant impacts the
Marine Business Zone may have on fragile marine
environments such as are found at Sage Cove.
In that letter I recommended that the Board
consider adoption of the "Marine/Recreational" zone
proposal prepared by the Town's Conservation Advisory
Council and suggested that the adoption of that proposal
would help mitigate the impacts of the new Master
Plan/Zoning Code on the Sage Cove area. I write at this
juncture to clarify and expand on my November 18th
letter.
My clients generally support the intent of the
"Marina/Recreational" zone as proposed and submitted by
the Town's Conservation Advisory Council and endorsed by
the League of Women Voters of Riverhead and Southold,
the North Fork Environmental Council and others, but
they recognize it is a draft which must be refined and
made more specific in certain areas.
While the proposed "Marina/Recreational" zone would
help mitigate the impacts of the proposed new Master
Plan and zoning Code on the Sage Cove area, it would
certainly not fully mitigate the damage to the area's
environment which would result from implementation of
the Master Plan. Of great concern to my clients is that
,-~
~
.
.
Town Board
Town of Southold
January 8, 1987
Page two
the Marine Business or the Marina Recreational Zone
proposed by the CAC, would cover the Cove bottom, 81.5%
of which is now zoned for residential use. Also, of
concern is that the Zehner property, the entire
perimeter of the Cove, as well as the surrounding upland
areas, are zoned for low-density residential use. This
area, togther with the entire cove bottom is classified
by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation as either mostly tidal wetlands or
freshwater wetlands.
In view of the above factors as well as the
environmental data developed as a result of the hearings
on the SouthportjZehner EIS, it is the position of my
clients that the only way the implemention of the
proposed Master Plan and Zoning Code can avoid having a
significant, adverse impact on Sage Cove and its
surroundings is if the area remains zoned for
low-density residential use.
The record indicates that my clients are not alone
in reaching this conclusion. The Town's professional
planning consultants (RPPW) in the preparation of the
Master Plan considered the area so "environmentally
fragile" and so in need of protection as to be unsuited
for development. As a consequence, they designated the
bulk of the property surrounding the cove as open space.
Other than the Zehner property, the only surrounding
areas not so designated are those already improved with
residential structures.
It is unfortunate that the Board has apparently
sought to disregard the recommendations of the planning
consultants with respect to this area. It is submitted
that the Town's best interest would be served by more
restrictive zoning designations on our waterfront areas
than those less restrictive with their potential for
decreasing the quality of the Town's surface waters,
shell fishing areas and fish and wildlife habitats.
The Town has already conceded that any proposed
development of the Sage Cove area allowing uses similar
to that in the "M-l" Multiple Residence Zoning District
will likely have a significant impact on the
environment. Further, the Town has found that the
y
.
.
Town Board
Town of Southold
January 8, 1987
Page three
residential development of the Bayview Realty
Development Corporation property would also have a
significant impact on the environment. The Southportj
Zehner DEIS has emphatically confirmed the destructive
effects of this form of development of the area on the
environment. However, in apparent disregard of these
factors, the Town has issued a determination of non-
significance for the Master Plan even though the Master
Plan incorporates individual rezonings along the Town's
waterfront (such as and including the Zehner proposal)
which, taken by themselves, have been determined to have
significant environmental impacts. We would submit that
the conduct of the Town Board in this matter is
misguided and that the Board may be responding to the
economic desires of certain individual property owners
to the detriment of their neighbors and the Town as a
whole.
In summation, my clients insist that the planning
for the Sage Cove area and its surroundings be based
upon sound and impartial planning principles, and give
full weight to the purposes and intent of SEQRA, and be
devoid of any considerations of personalities and
relative profitability. My clients, their planners and
consultants, informed and impartial civic groups and,
indeed, the Town's own consultants agree that the entire
Sage Cove area should at least be retained in a low
density residential district; if not, as the Town's
consultants have recommended, an open-space
classification.
CKjbb
cc: Henry Weismann
Frank Flynn
~~Fi',
i;;:
:+
j'
I..
:j~' ,
:> ,<; Ji~
,. 'f'''. It..
';':''''1"',,t'','I' 1..1
'''1'',-';:;, :., "
,JjWPli(:i'I,)J~; l~ 'j :', :,:<:!:~
!f,I~:r. , '" ,'lgt'f "\1 r , '
. .~, ' ; \ J ,: 1 . f ; f" I r' ,
::>:;1'",:> ,'ti II
. ~, '~:, ,1,; :i1 ';,' .J". ,.
)' I '.' I, i;i~ ..j,;:;;' I, i' . i I "I'
<" 'I' , ',,' <~'l ",
::1)'::'/1":'1' :r:, 'I
,; ,
,
I,
.,,1
I'
\ :"~ i
l"J
';',,;,r
:';
. ;"'~:;I' " :
~D ,:.,
~;~i:;;t~ '';
'~t~r 'f! ' .
'"'!!,{"
~," ,i
, ,
"
:I!' ,,'
,r"
I '
" '
i',
1', I:
.f!t
,
.)1
"
,I
:1'
, ! ~.
I' , ,
1 . . ' .
",'j " ,.
'f"<
,. i
",il':iiH: Ii. 'f i
, ,d':;
;j I'
i' 1':'1' j" ';
; .. 1 ~
:'1- ': :i!::: :rfn"1 i :.:,'j I '.~< '" i ;"~!~';/":; .' 'i.l~tLi,l,n: ' ..r'. ~.
1 ," : ..;;:~3EEJVi:~~~~l?k'
; d ~^:":(;1;V98'Ck, . , " i 6
j JI-Jl -~ '. Yf' /71 :
id.h?lC~U4'~~ .~~1.../ /10~
/, - T""," CI~.l, Itholdtfl
" : "l '
,
!~ "" :!~f:',:':',~< I .!;
I
,j,' .r'
:!'"
,
-~iii'l
~lIt ' ,
'";".
, ,-
',-,
,
,;,:
I ;l. ~
i
I
'j.
11901
,"
,~>;
{,
':;;"
';'.-
"
';1.
':;-'I~~r ~~;
. ~1.~ .': "
':':.'
"'l't: '
,-,;..) 1;' ,'-
~----
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
---------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of
HOWARD ZEHNER, (formerly Southport
Development)
---------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
THE APPLICATION OF HOWARD ZEHNER
(FORMERLY SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT) FOR
A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "CO LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO "M-I" GENERAL
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT
Introduction
This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of Henry
Weismann and Frank Flynn who reside on Tarpon Drive in
Southold in close proximity to the site of the proposed
change of zone. On three separate occasions intervenors
have submitted comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement prepared for the project. These comments were
submitted in writing under covers dated January 17,
1986, March 25, 1986, and October 8, 1986, and included
reports from intervenors' expert witnesses Larry Penny,
Frederick Reuter and Frederick Meyer. I ask that they
be incorporated into the record of this proceeding since
they deal with the substantive issues raised by the
application as well as the defects of the DEIS and FEIS.
. .
In addition, intervenors submitted a Memorandum of
Frederick H. Reuter, dated February 5, 1986, entitled
"Analysis and Recommendation with Reference to the
Proposed Town of Southold Master Plan Update As It
Applies to Conkling Point Peninsula" in response to the
proposal by the Town Board to zone the whole of the
Conkling Point area in a Marine Business District.
Inasmuch as the points raised in that report are
pertinent to the zoning and planning considerations
relevant to the decision on this applicaton, I ask that
the Board incorporate that Memorandum into the record on
this applicaion.
Intervenors are strongly opposed to the proposed
zone change from a "C" Light Industrial District to an
"M-I" General Multiple Residence District. In addition.
the abutting neighbors of the Zehner property join in
this opposition. Their objections, prepared in a form
in compliance with Town Law 5265 and submitted to the
Board, require that any vote on the approval of the
proposed change of zone be by a three-fourths (3/4)
majority vote of the Town Board. The petitions of
William Killian, Joseph and Marie Knizak, Joseph W. and
Rose M. Suda and Bayview Realty Development Corp. are
submitted herewith demanding that a three-fourths
-2-
r-"
majority be required on this application.
POINT I
THE BOARD FAILED TO
COMPLY WITH SEQRA
As stated in the three prior written submissions to
this Board and in prior oral testimony of intervenors'
expert witnesses, the SEQRA review of this project has
been inadequate to form a basis for approval of the
pro ject.
First, as has been repeatedly pointed out
throughout the SEQRA process, the DE IS and FEIS are
woefully inadequate in that they have failed to 1) fully
discuss the environmental impacts which will result from
the project as proposed, 2) identify reasonable
alternatives to the project which would have a lesser
environmental impact, and 3) propose mitigation
sufficient to ameliorate the environmental damage th,s
project will cause.
Second, the Negative Declaration issued by this
Board less than a week ago does not meet the
requirements of 6 N.Y.C.R.R. ~6l7.9(c) of the SEQRA
regulations. That section requires that certain
-3-
.
.
findings be made before an agency approve an action.
One of the findings that must be made by the Board is
that:
Consistent with, social, economic and other
essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed
in the environmental impact statement process will
be minimized or avoided by incorporating as
conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures which were identified as practicable.
However, as a review of the Negative Declaration
approved by the Board indicates, the Board was not able
to make such a finding, but instead found:
Adverse impacts revealed during the SEQRA process
for the requested change of zone will be minimized
or avoided by further analysis under SEQRA during
the site-plan process.
Such a finding is a far cry from that required
by ~617.9(c).
It does not state any of the mitigation
which was identified as practicable which would minimize
or avoid environmental impacts. Contrary to this
section and the whole intent of SEQRA, the Board simply
fails to make and/or postpones any decision on what
conditions will constrain this project by leaving it to
some future board at some future date.
Such an irresponsible abrogation of its
administrative obligation is forbidden by SEQRA. As
stated in the SEQRA Handbook at page B-49 in referring
to the findings requirements of section 617.9:
-4-
,--
If the Findings criteria listed above are not met,
an agency cannot undertake, approve or fund the
action.
In addition, the Board has illegally attempted to
segment the review of the zone change application from
the other approvals required to make this project a
reality. Again, the Board has abrogated its obligation
under SEQRA. The project as proposed clearly satisfies
the test set forth at page B-21 of the SEQRA Handbook
qualifying it as the type of application which cannot be
considered in its component parts. The intent and
letter of SEQRA forbids segmentation of such
actions and all parts of the project must be reviewed
prior to any approvals being granted.
POINT II
THE PROPOSED REZONING
VIOLATES TOWN LAW S263
AND IS CONTRARY TO ALL NOTIONS
OF GOOD PLANNING.
Section 263 of Town law requires that zoning
regulations must be enacted in accordance with a
comprehensive plan and, inter alia, to "promote health
and general welfare", "prevent the overcrowding of
land", and to "avoid undue concentration of population;
to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,
water,- sewage, schools, parks and other public
requirements".
-5-
.
.
However, it is clear that if the application is
approved as proposed, the zone change will not be in
accordance with a comprehansive plan. In fact, one of
the great ironies of this application is that it is
being heard on its merits less than three weeks before
the public hearings are to be held on the Town's Master
Plan and new Zoning Code.
As pointed out numerous times by land use planner,
Frederick Reuter in the comments on the DEIS, the area
in which this project is located IS surrounded by
low-density residential use. To allow an 82 unit motel,
121 boat-slip marina and boatyard, 125-seat restaurant
facility, tennis courts, pool, patio and parking for 238
cars on the Zehner property would constitute a classic
"spot zoning". Approval of the project will allow an
intensity of development beyond that which the land, the
surface and groundwater quality of the area, and the
neighborhood can reasonably bear.
As proposed, the variety of uses that this project
encompasses would be crammed into 7 to 8 upland acres
and density calculated while using the 4 to 5 underwater
acres. This simply defies logic.
The proposed zoning change does not make good
planning sense for other reasons as well. Given the
-6-
current zoning code a change to "M-I" General Multiple'
Residence District will not allow the applicant all the
uses he needs. Marinas and hotels and motels are
special exception uses not permitted uses under the
Code. Furthermore, a use variance would be requIred to
allow the restaurant and the boatyard proposed.
Clearly, the current Zoning Code did not contemplate a
combination of the marina, motel, boatyard and
restaurant uses as proposed by the appl.cant. In
essence, it appears the Board is seekin~ to ca~ve out a
unique exception to zoning and good planning by heaping
uses on the subject property. The only result will be a
windfall to the applicant and a blight on the
environment.
Because of the subject parcel's unique history, its
zoning designation is totally out of character with the
area within which it is located. In essence, it is
currently a "spot zoning" and stands out like a "sore
thumb" In the context of the neighborhood and Conkling
Point. As this Board well knows, the Conkling POlnt
area has been designated as a significant fish and
wildlife habitat by the New York State Department ot
Environmental Conservation. To g~ant the subject
rezoning, would only institutionalize the mistake ot
-7-
.
.
history which made the parcel .C. Light Industrial.
Common sense and good planning dictate that the site be
zoned residential with a pre-existing, non-conforming
use of a marina on it. Since the Board is now
attempting to deal with a land use plan for the Town on
a comprehensive level, it should not succumb to the
pressure to perpetuate a bad zoning and planning
situation by re-establishing yet another commercial zone
in an area that it logically and environmentally more
suited for residential use.
One of the obvious impacts that the rezoning as
proposed will have on the neighboring properties is to
diminish their value. The values of neighboring
residential parcels of the Jacobs, Sudas, Knizaks and
Killians will all suffer if the project as proposed is
approved. In additon, the Bayview Realty Development,
Corporation, which is the largest, single neighboring
property owner will be seriously impacted in its ability
to economically and with environmental sensitivity
develop the surrounding parcel of 86.5 acres.
As discussed more extensively in our comments on
the DEIS, the applicant has shown no public need for
this project nor that there has even been full occupancy
of the local marinas and motels during peak summer
-8-
months necessitating additional boat slips and motel
units.
Mr. Zehner cited at the November 18th hearing on
this matter that he needs the intensive development as
proposed because of such things as the "expense and
difficulty" of having help and the general cost of doing
business as a marina.
However, these are not
circumstances and conditions that affect the subject
property uniquely.
All marina owners are subject to the
same business pressures.
CONCLUSION
Because of this Board's inability to make the
findings required by SEQRA in order to approve the
subject rezoning and because the subject zoning defies
all logic and notions of good planning and would not oe
pursuant to a comprehensive plan, it is submitted that
the subject rezoning be denied in all respects.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY
Attorneys for Intervenors
Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn
33 West Second Street
P .0. Bo x 398
Riverhead, NY 11901
.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
JANUARY 6, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HOWARD ZEHNER, D/B/A YOUNGS BOATYARD
AND MAR I NA (formerly petition of Southport Development) FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE
FROM "C" INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO "M-it" GENERAL MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICl
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Counci Iman James A. Schondebare
Counci Iwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
* * *
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Absent: J usti ce Raymond W. Edwards
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, it's 8:00 o'clock. I 'would like to open the public
hearing. This hearing is scheduled for 8:00 o'clock, January 6th, 1987, Southold
Town Hall, on the petition of Howard Zehner, formerly Southport Development Corp.,
for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "1,1-1" General Multiple
Residence District at Sage Boulevard, Greenport. The official reading will be done
by Counci Iman Schondebare.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: "Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and
the requi rements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York,
a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the
Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 8:00 o'clock P.M.,"on the
6th day of January, 1987, on the proposal of Howard Zehner' (formerly Southport '.
Development Corp.) to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building
Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, by changing from
"C" Light Indistrial District to "1,1-1" General Multiple Residence District all that
certain plot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and more particularly bounded
and descri bed as follows:" I'll dispense with the readi ng of the metes and bounds
unless someone feels that itis necessary. (No objection.) "Any person desiring
to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above
sO specified. Dated: December 16, 1986. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk."
I have affidavit of publication of this notice by The Long Island Traveler-
Watchman, and affidavit of publication of the notice by The Suffolk Times. An
affidavit of posting on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board of this notice by the Town
Clerk.
There's numerous correspondence of this file, but most of it pertains to the
SEQR process, a hearing upon which we've already held. That's it, Frank.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jay. Howard, would you like to say anything
first? Or your representative?
./?0\
(y \\&\\'1:
i' -
Page 2 - Zehner
MARIE ONGIONI, Attorney: I represent the Zehners in their application. Actually
I would like to reserve comments until the audience has had their opportunity to voice
their views on the application for the change of zone, and I believe that my client,
Mr. Zehner, is of the same opinion. I would like to say, however, at this'point that
I believe that the change of zone application currently before the Board is, from a
public policy standpoint, in the interest of the Town. If the zone were changed from
its current use district to "M-I" it would eliminate the potential development the area
as it could now develop if the zoning were to remain the same. That could, in all
likelihood, be detrimental to the nature of the area as itis now. I think that the
Board has made that acknowledgement in its findings relating to the FEIS, in that it
states that the "uses permitted under the "M-I" General Multiple Residence District
more closely comply with the uses proposed under the Town's Master Plan." So I
think that in that perspective, as well, it would be in the area's best interest to make
this change at this point, and I will rest at this point and I would like the hearing to
proceed. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, is there anyone on the left that would Ii ke to speak
in favor of this proposed zone change? (No response.) Anyone in the middle Ii ke
to speak in favor of this proposed zone change? (No response.) Anyone on the
left Ii ke to speak in opposition to the proposed zone change? Yes, si r?
CHRISTOPHER KELLEY: Supervisor Murphy, members of the Board. My name is
Christopher Kelley, from the law firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, and I'm
here representing Frank Flynn and Henry Weismann, two intervenors, who have
participated throughout the SEQR review process in submitting comments, both of
thei r' ow n and of expert witnesses, on the adequacy of the Envi ronmental Impact
Statement. I'm also here tonight, and I'm authorized to submit to the Town Board,
petitions on behalf of neighboring property Owners who own more than 20% of the
abutting properties, in accordance with Section 265 of the Town Law, and I will
hand them up at this point.
(Mr. Kelley handed Supervisor Murphy individual petitions signed by the following
property owners: Murray Jacobs, Selma R. Jacobs: "Petition in protest against
the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of Howard Zehner
(formerly Southport Development Corp.) for a change from "C" to "M-I". Murray
and Selma Jacobs, Suffolk County Tax Map Number: I 000-053-05-9, The undersigned,
as a neighboring property owner, does hereby protest the change of zone as noticed
for public hearing."
William F. Kilian: "Petition pursuant to Town Law Section 265 in protest against
the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of Howard Zehner
(formerly Southport Development Corp.) for a change from "C" to "M-I". William
Kilian, Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-053-05-12.2. The undersigned as an
adjacent property ow ner, does hereby protest the change of zone as noticed for
public hearing and demands that any vote on said change of zone be subject to
three-fourths (3/4) majority vote as required by Town Law Section 265."
Joseph Knizak, Marie Knizak: "Petition pursuant to Town Law Section 265 in
protest against the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of
Howard Zehner (formerly Southport Development Corp.) for a change from "C" to
"M-I". Joseph and Marie Knizak, Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-053-05-11.2,
The undersigned as an adjacent property owner, does hereby protest the change of
zone as noticed for public heari ng and demands that any vote on said change of zone
be subject to a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote as requi red by Town Law Section
265.
Page 3 - Zehner
.
.
Joseph W. Suda, Rose M. Suda: Petition pursuant to Town Law Section 265
in protest against the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of
Howard Zehner (formerly Southport Development Corp.) for a change from "C" to
"M-l". Joseph W. Suda and Rose M. Suda, Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000-
053-05-10, The undersigned as an adjacent property owner, does hereby protest the
change of zone as noticed for public. hearing and demands that any \fote on said
change of zone be subject to a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote as required by
Town Law Section 265.
Jeffrey Forchelli, President, Bayview Realty Development Corp.: Petition pursuant
to Town Law Section 265 in protest against the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance
upon the petition of Howard Zehner (formerly Southport Development Corp.) for a
change from "C" to "M-l". The undersigned as an adjacent property owner and owner
of the lot with Suffolk County Tax Map number 1000-053-05-12.3 and 1000-053-05-12.4
fronting on Main Road in Southold with additional frontage on Sage Cove, Shelter
Island Sound, and the Zehner property, constituting more than twenty (20%) percent
of the property adjacent to the subject property does hereby protest the change of
zone as noticed for public hearing and demands that any vote on said change of zone
be subject to a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote as required by Town Law Section
265. )
MR. KELLEY: I've also got a Memorandum of Law which I'd like to submit. (Memorandum
of Law in opposition to the application of Howard Zenher (formerly Southport Develop-
ment) for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple
Residence District, dated; January 6, 1987, Christopher Kelley, of Counsel - placed
on file in the Zehner change of zone file maintained by the Town Clerk's Office).
The consequence of the petitions I just presented to the Board, under Section
265 of the Town Law, once a petition is received, or objections are received from
neighboring property owners who own 20% or more of the neighboring property, the
Town Board is required--can only act on the change of zone by a three-quarters
majority of the Town Board. For the record, the names of the individuals and
corporations that presented objections; Number 1, the Bayview Realty Development
Corp. Number 2, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs, which we just received tonight. Joseph
and Rose Suda. Joseph and Marie Knizak, and William Kilian. Later on in my
presentation--I'II try to keep it short, just a few brief remarks--I will ask Mr.
Larry Penny to present a few remarks on this application as well.
A few housekeepi ng matters: Mr. Schondebare referenced the prior SEQR
hearing process. I would ask that the Board incorporate the commends that we've
submitted on the DEIS and the FEIS into this hearing inasmuch as the comments
therein deal with this application as well as the environmental impact, and the dates
of those comments were January 17th, 1986, March 25, 1986, and October 8th, 1986.
On addition we submitted a memorandum of Frederick Reuter, a land use planner, well
know in the field, and his memorandum was dated February 5, 1986. That delt with
recommendations relevant to the Master Plan for determining the zoning in its area.
I ask that you incorporate that into this hearing tonight.
I'd first like to object to the timing of this hearing. Unfortunately this was
noticed in the newspapers, from what I understand, Christmas Eve--possibly Christmas
Day--actually the date of the paper is the 25th. Giving upon us little time to prepare.
If there were no holidays intervening, that would be problem enough, but with the
holidays it made it quite difficult for us to prepare for presentation. As a result we
have a rather slimmed down presentation tonight. Unfortunately, the rush to hear
this application suggests that the Board is rushing the judgment, and this is particularl)
true in light of the fact that less then three weeks away the Board will be considering
a comprehensive plan and new Zoning Code for the entire Town of Southold, which
would make this application somewhat moot, unless the Board chose to change the
zoning twice in a matter of a short period of time for this parcel.
r-
Page 4 - Zehner
The substance of our objections are fairly simple. The first point of our
objections relate to the SEQR process. technical objections that we have
as to the way information was handled throughout the SEQR process. In some it
comes down to three basic deficiencies which we see with the environmental documents
that have been produced. First is that the applicant has failed to adequately identify
and analyze the significant envi ronmental impacts that wi II result from this application.
The ,second defect is that after identi fyi ng some of the impacts, but not all of them,
the applicant fails to propose adequate mitigation to prevent these environmental impacts
from damaging the environment of the Sage Cove area and the Conkling peninsula area.
The third problem, which goes to the heart of the SEQR process, is that the applicant
has fai led to adequately discuss alternatives to the project that would mitigate envi ron-
mental problems presented by the application. These three points have been discussed
extensively in our prior documents and I won't go into them now. The second objection
that we have, based on the failure of the SEQR process in this instance, results from
the Board's resolution of last week issuing a negative declaration following the preparati<
of the Final Envi ronmental Impact Statement. As this. Board is well aware, Section
617. g(c) of the State Envi ronmental Quality Review Act implementing regulations requi res
that followi ng the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statment, a Board, acti ng on
an application, must issue certain findings of fact. The purpose of this regulation is
fairly clear. The intent of the legislature was that a Board consider all of the environ-
mental impacts that a project presents and before going forward to approve that project
that it take every action practicable to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project.
I'd like to read to you from the regulations one of the findings that you are required
to make.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Counselor, didn't we already have the SEQR hearing,
and didn't we already make our findings?
MR. KELLEY: Yes, but you made it subsequent to the hearing. No one's had an
opportunity yet to comment on the findings that were made in last week's resolution.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: But we're here tonight for a public hearing on a zone
change, not the SEQR process all over again.
MR. KE LLEY: Well, except for the fact that you cannot go forward with the zone
change application unless you comply with SEQR.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: The Board has complied as far as we're concerned.
We've done the SEQR process and we've already made our declaration. Why are you
doing SEQR all over again?
MR. KELLEY: I ask that I be able to complete the thought here. I want to show
the Board. at least suggest to the Board, that what they did last week did not
comply with SEQR. That they're not in compliance, and they may--with all due
respect, you may have overlooked the particular point that I'm about to raise.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: What you're asking us then is to reopen the SEQR
hearing? Void our declaration that we've already made?
MR. KELLEY:
this application
said last week.
No, I'm suggesting that if you go forward at this point to approve
you wi II be in violation of SEQR because of what your resolution
Page 5 - Zehner
.
.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Our resolution stands what was done last week.
That's where I'm losing you.
MR. KELLEY: Okay, can I continue? Maybe if I am able to present the point you'll
see where I'm going.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Go ahead.
MR. KELLEY: Section 617.9(c) says that a Board must make a finding that is
"consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum
extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact
statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the
decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable." The resolution
issued by the Board last week doesn't contain that finding. The finding it contains
is as follows: "Adverse impacts revealed during the SEQRA process for the requested
change of zone will be minimized or avoided by further analysis under SEQRA during
the site-plan process." I would submit, Mr. Schondebare, that what the Board has
done is postpone meeting its obligation under SEQR and has passed the buck to future
Boards which may review site plans, which may review special permit applications.
That is not permitted under SEQR, and that is my point.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Excepting your interpretation of that. Which I don't.
But excepting that it is, We're still here tonight for a public hearing on the change
of zone. Not our decision on the SEQR.
MR. KELLEY: The logical point--the point that follows logically from that, is that
you can't go forward unless you've mitigated the impacts of this proposal before you
vote.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: So then you're asking us---
MR. KELLEY: And you didn't do that in the findings.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: So you're asking us to set aside our decision that
we made on the SEQR.
MR. KELLEY: Basically, yes.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: That's all I want to know.
MR. KELLEY: To not incorporate mitigation at this stage would result in a segmentatior
of the project. You'd be segmenting the SEQR review of the project into a zone change
application separate and apart from the site plan application or a special permit applica-
tion. That's something you cannot do under SEQR. Aside from the SEQR process, it is
our position that this zone change application would not conform to a comprehensive
plan. As zoning officials you know that the Town Law, Section 263, requires that
any zone change be in accordance wi th the comprehensive plan. We are now three
weeks away, roughtly, from a hearing on what's to be the Town's comprehensive plan.
But even in a looser sense, the Town comprehensive plan that exists at this point
would suggest that this piece of property, which is surrounded by low density
residential development and use should not have such an intense mixture of commercial
uses right in the midst of that residential area. I would suggest to you that this is a
spot zoning. A classic case of it. Now, unfortunately there's some historic circum-
stances that have led to a particular use being established there, but that, I would
suggest, is not a reason to institutionalize this historic spot zoning by changing from
an industrial use to a commercial use, which still does not fit in with the character
'~--
Page 6 - Zehner
of the residential area that this is located in: Next in point I would ask the Board
to consider that even if the application for a change of zone is approved in this
instance, the uses and the intensity of the uses proposed by the applicant, would
not be permitted in this' zone. The restaurant, which would be 125 seat restaurant,
would require a use variance. A boatyard would require a use variance. It's clear
that the existing code under the IM-1" designation never contemplated all these uses
being located on the same site, nor did it even contemplate some of these uses being
located on an IM-1" piece. The additional impacts I would ask the Board to consider,
from a planning perspective, is the impact on the value of the neighboring properties
and on the character of the neighborhood that's been established on Sage--all around
Sage Cove. It's currently surrounded by either open space use, or residences. In
fact there are four neighbors who share the same access that this parcel shares. Which
brings me to another point. It is our position that several important planning issues
have not been adequately addressed and should be addressed by this Board before
they go forward changing the zone on this property. Specifically the availability of
access is sti II an open item here. That has not been resolved and the project--no
planner in his right mind would suggest that this project be built with a 16 foot wide
access. It's not even legal access, it's merely a right-of-way. Pursuant to the
resolution issued last week by this Board the issue of drainage control and sewage
treatment has also been postponed to a later date, and I think that it would be
irresponsible for the Board to move ahead and change the zone knowing that this
particular project is slated for this area, without dealing with those issues.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Counselor, I think we've--you're being site specific.
In other words, you're being project specific, and we've operated, I believe, pursuant
to what our Town Attorney has told us, that what we're doing is changing a zone.
And once we've changed that zone the party can take his project that he's given us
and throw it out the window, and we don't see it again. He then can come back
into the Planning Board and apply for anything that's allowed under that zone that
we've just granted. I s that correct?
MR. KELLEY: Yes, it's correct. However, I refer to page B-49 of the SEQR hand-
book, and in there the DEC describes how SEQR is supposed to work, and when there's
a zone change application on the table, it's not adequate for the Board to look with
blinders at that application, and say, well, this is only the zone change application.
Later on there may be a site plan, there may be a different project. The intent here
wasn't to allow a Board to put those blinders on, but to require a comprehensive look
at the project when a specific project isin mind, has been proposed by the applicant
and is on the table. Of course you're absolutely correct in the instances where a zone
change is sought without a specific project in mind. I'd agree with you one hundred
percent.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Even with a specific project in mind, the applicant
can simply stop going ahead and come back two years later with a totally different
project that's allowed under the zone. Correct?
MR. KELLEY: Yes, but the kicker is when there is such an application, and we've
got one here, an 82 unit motel, 125 seat restaurant, 283 parking spaces, tennis
courts, pool, patio, boatyard use. This is not an amorphous project that may be
out in somebody's imagination at this point. This is on the table, the maps prepared,
there's engineering studies done. We're not dealing with a totally hypothetical case
here, and I'm just suggesting that in that instance you're required to look beyond
just the zone change.
COU NC J lhlAN SCHO NDEBARE: I can't remember any zone change that I've had.
sitting on this Board for the last three years, that has not been project specific.
Page 7 - Zehner
.
.
I don't remember anyone ever coming in and saying I want a zone change, but I'm
not going to tell you why I want a zone change. Everybody comes in' and tell us
they want a zone change and they have an idea what they want-----
MR. KELLEY: Presumably in three weeks you'll be considering zone changes without
specific projects in mind.
COUNCI UvlAN SCHONDEBARE: That's totally different. It's the whole Master Plan.
MR. KELLEY: Right, but those will change zones throughout the Town without
specific projects in mind for those zones. And there are instancesn--
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: But that's the Master Plan. But sitting up on this
Board I've never received any type of a request for a zone change that was----
MR. KELLEY: From an applicant----
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: ---that had no project in mind.
MR. KELLEY: Occasionally, and I'm somewhat involved with zoning in East Hampton
Town, zoning changes are proposed not by particular applicants, but by planning
staff and counsel and consultants to the Town Board, which perceive a need for a
change of zone in a particular region or area, which don't necessarily correspond
to specific projects. It's considered good planning to periodically update and change
a comprehensive plan.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: The Town doing it, yes, but we're not talking about
a Town, we're talking about an applicant.
MR. KELLEY: No, you were talking about changes of zone, not just by---
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Right.
MR. KELLEY: I think we're differing---we're not differing on substance here, we're
differing on the way we're describing what's going on.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Okay.
MR. KELLEY: In conclusion I suggest this application,ifgranted, will only result
in a windfall to the applicant and a blight on the environment. I suggest that if the
Board is prepared to make that decision to go forward here, that it also be prepared
to defend that in court against the points that I've just raised. So we would respect-
fully suggest that this application be denied in all respects, and with this point I'd
Ii ke to introduce Larry Penny who has appeared before this Board before. His
cred2ntials are before as curriculum vitae is in the file and I'd like him to address
some additional points. Thank you.
COUNCIUvlAN SCHONDEBARE: Mr. Kelley, before you go, if I looked at an "M-l"
in our present code and it tells me the uses that are allowed in an "M-l", because
you had mentioned before about if we grant this we're allowing a variety of lIses,
or it shouldn't be allowed. It seems that the Uses that are allowed in "M-l" are
very, very limited. Namely, a tourist camp, hotel, motels, multiple dwellings and
mahna. Basically that's it. But then I look at the uses permitted in "C" Light
Industrial, which is what this property is at the present time, I get things like
wholesale storage and warehousing, bus and truck terminals, eating and drinking
'r
Page 8 - Zehner
establishments, retail sale of boats, public utilities, industrial uses, including
manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or other
processing, handling or storage of products or materials involving the use of
only oil, gas or electrici'ty for fuel. It seems to me that under our "C", where
we placed marinas, and maybe not appropriately, but that's the way it is, we
have a wide variety of uses which are totally adverse to a wetlands area, and
it seems to be less or mitigaged under an "M-1".
MR. KELLEY: You said that they were permitted uses, right?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Special exceptions.
MR. KELLEY: Special exceptions.
COUNC I LMAN SCHONDEBARE: They're all special exceptions.
MR. KELLEY: Well, that's a great difference, because all those uses that we're
objecting to on this application, most of them--or several of them would be special
exception uses under "M-1" and would also be special exceptions under the proposed
zoni ng code.
COUNC I LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Yes, but the special exceptions under a "C" go
from one to eighteen of them. Whereas a special exception under an "M", which is
what the applicant's asking for, goes from one to five, and they seem to be mitigated
special exceptions. Perhaps a marina should never have been put in to a "C" Light
Industrial, but that probably happened back in '57. But it seems to me that's one
of the thi ngs that I have problems with, is that why should we property with all
these heavy, heavy uses?
MR. KELLEY: I would not suggest that you leave this area---is why I think you
should zone it residential, in conformance with the surrounding area. I'm not
arguing with you on that, Mr. Schondebare.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, want to let Larry---thank you.
LARRY PENNY: Larry Penny, East Hampton Town, former resident of the North
Fork, North Fork town Mattituck, I've lived here. You have received most of my
comments on two separate occasions with respect to the proposed zone change--
hypothetical project--I suppose that would take place in this area. I just want to
reiterate a few of the comments which I think are still apropos with respect to the
hearing on the zone change which you mentioned, and I thank you for allowing me
to be here and to reiterate these comments. I thi nk that I would take issue with
respect to all uses in a light commercial zone. Some light commercial zone uses
could be very harmless to the environment if properly mitigated, but I would agree
that aesthetically residential probably would be the best way to go with respect to
this particular site. I would say that when you're talking about multi-residential
zones--and I've had a lot of experience with multi-residential establishments, they
do have a few kinds of uses associated with them that have substantial impacts,
and these impacts are very difficult to mitigate, and consequently is why I don't
think this site should be zoned multi-residential. Outstanding among these is the
use of water. You notice that the various estimates of the use of water for a project
zoned multi pie on this site, but the DEIS at 17,000 gallons designed flow per day,
peak time. The FEIS referred to the DEIS. My own calculation suggests something--
somewhat On the order of 25,000 gallons per day, peak flow. Nevertheless all the
peak flows I've seen to date would really require hOOk-up to the sewage treatment
Page 9 - Zehner
.
.
plant or in the district, or to a package treatment plant. I think the impacts fraught
with sub-surface recharge of even 15,000 per day during peak times, that is contam-
i nated affluent that comes from individual toi lets, restaurants, other uses associated
with the zone that will be planned for this site, represents a tremendous amount of
contamination--tremendous threat to the nearby surface waters, and I think the history
on Long Island and elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, and places along the Pacific
Coast, and certainly throughout the World is that itis very difficult to mitigate the
contami nation that is attendant to sub-surface flow, recharge of effluent, waste water,
in this site that is immediate approximate to the surface waters, and consequently
unless you had a zone--a multiple residence zone that spoke of say two or three units
per acre, you're going to--you know, every time you add on a new _ D.U. you're
going to up the probability--the likelihood of serious contamination. I think we're
talking about 82 two units--78 units--17, 000 gallons a day or more. We're talking
about serious contamination--a very, very high probabi lity of not only coli forms ,
viruses, chemicals of various sorts, organics and inorganic";, and so forth, getting
into those surface waters. I know the ground water is. not a problem here because
the ground water wouldn't be used for drinking--the surface waters, it's the Cove and
Southold Bay that I'm concerned with. Now I've seen some plans of so-called drainage
plan that might be used for projects on the site and the denitrification system which
I think is--you know, is. not the best system in this particular instance, because it
really is only working on nitrates, and I've seen too many examples of large flow
systems recharging in the proximity of surface waters and wouldn't you know the
surface water coli forms go up and up and up and pretty soon the waters are deterior-
ified for shellfishing. I would think that's a major impact here, and I don't see any
way of getting around it short of taking the water and sending it back to the Greenpon
treatment district. The use of water is another--another large problem here. Theuse
of water for drinking purposes and bathing and so forth, and some commercial uses,
Ii ke commercial uses a site would only use on the order of 1,000 gallons a day. Now,
in many of those uses the water--for example, a marina, ifH wasn't used for drinking
water, but boat washing and so forth, and could be actually ground water used and
recirculated in that respect. However, we're talking about the importation of water
from the district of which has serious water problems, and I brought with me tonight
this volume, "Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan", two
volume work, I brought one volume. But throughout the two volume work it points
to various municipalities in the County of Suffolk and you know, and point out problems
that are ongoing, long standing, and in need to rectify these problems in the face of
further expansion. Now, I'll just point out that Southold's may be among the worst
in terms of being able to provide ample supplies of high quality water, water that
meets drinking water standards. In the future, for example, of 15 public wells,
eight test four, two test marginal, five test good or better. There are several
examples in this volume of the need for comprehensive water management in Southold.
I understand the Board is going in the direction of taking care of this problem, as
all municipalities are, or should be on Long Island. However, I think it is foolhearty
to export water from a water system that right now is fraught with problems that
notices have to be sent out that the nitrates may exceed standards. There are other
contaminates in the water and so forth, and you're exporting the water if you allow
this to become multiple residential and allow the public water--the water everywhere
does not get recharged in terms of enriching the ground water, so the water is lost
from the system essentially, and I would thi nk in a place Ii ke Southold where you have
the glacial aquifer and natural water resource, that you would be a bit more conservativ
in dis tri buti ng your water. I noti ce that the vote to di stri bute the water to this si te
was three-two vote by the Commissioners of the Greenport Water District, so that there
was some controversy as to where the water should be going and so fonh. I think
those are the two primary problems--the use of water and the discharge of water--that
are really attendant with a multiple residential siting, especially one that would allow
such intensive use and high density, this one would if it were changed in that way.
,-
Page 10 - Zehner
Now, the loss of shellfishing resources is an ongoing problem. We've seen it 'some-
times, of course, by natural causes, sometimes, however, the loss of shellfishing
resources is directly tied to human interference, human disturbance, and I think
that we certainly would be looking right down the eye of a significant loss of habitat
here if we were to develop this site in the way that itis projected with the change
of zone allowing multiple residential use. Aesthetically I should just point out--and
visual resources are important in terms of deciding whether a zone should be commercial
or mutli-residential or single family residence or park and recreation and what have you
I should just point out that I haven't seen very few art works of condominiums, and so
forth. I have seen many art works of--going back to of shipyards and marinas,
facilities, and I think that no one could--boating facilities are needed. Boating
and marina slips are needed. The marina use and perhaps some other low level of use
on the site, with some residential opportunity, probably would be much less environ-
mentally injurious then the muli-residential with these other uses, or multi-residential
alone. I would Ii ke to leave you wi th those thoughts. They're nothi ng more then a
reiteration of previous on the matter, but I've given a good deal of thought to this
and I think that it's a very salient point and this should be made again and again,
especially in the face of the loss of the rural landscape, the loss of ground water
resources, contamination of these resources, the contamination of surface waters
throughout Eastern Long Island and what we face in the future ahead. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Larry.
in opposition to this proposed zone change?
Anyone else on the left Ii ke to speak
Marty?
MARTIN GARRELL: Just a short statement.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Identify yourself.
MARTI N GARRELL: Yes, from the Conservation Advisory Council. I'm the current
Chair of the Consevation Advisory Council.
TOWN CLERK TERRY: And your name is?
DR. GARRELL: Dr. Martin Garrell. I'm also--professionally I'm chairman of the
Physics Department at Adelphi University, and my--the kind of research I do is
environmental and energy problem solving. I won't reiterate or go into detail over
a lot of the items that have already been mentioned here. The CAC statement wi II
be typed up for you and should be underneath--and should be handed into you
probably tomorrow from Linda Cooper in a nice neat draft form. But I'll read from
it tonight. After reading the Environmental Impact Statement and the addendum to
the Southport proposal, the Conservation Advisory Counci I advises the Town that
the change of zone in the area under consideration from "C" Light Industrial to
"M-1" General Multiple Residence be denied. We recommend denial for the following
reasons: Sewage: There is no way to insure the proper treatment of sewage generated
in an area lined by clay soils and an area which is subject to frequent flooding. We
believe this to be true even if the figure suggested in the report were realistic. That
figure was, I think, 15,000 gallons per day. Runoff: The square footage required
for parking and the number of parked vehicles, around 280 at peak, would produce a
terrific runoff problem in the basin. Flooding: Cesspools, catch basins and septic
fields would be overwhelmed at times of coastal high waters, that is storm tides, or
during periods of heavy rain, which could cause toxic substances, certainly nutrients
and bacteria to quickly reach the bay. Shellfishing: Closure of the section of the
Peconic Bay continguous to the basin in which the project lies would be a certain
consequence of the items above. Wetlands destruction: The consequent expansion
Page 11 - Zehner
.
.
of access roads to accommodate increased traffic would possibly destroy, certainly
put into jeopardy, adjacent wetlands, especially in the sector west of the boulevard.
We feel that the inadequacies of the Environmental Impact Statement and the sort of--
the large scale of the development, speak for themselves and we therefore recommend
really the upgrading of the current marina, within the definition of the current zoning,
instead of Southport. There are some other considerations that keep coming to my
mind, but perhaps beyond the environmental one of the things that we're working on,
and you probably know from CAC, we're trying to get a list to the County of sensitive
areas which might be used for--in the future for marinas or could be used as water-
front usage, and areas which would otherwise be subject to say condominium develop-
ment. This was in keeping with a letter from Greg Blass. And we feel that the--a
hurry to build up projects which would put condominiums along waterfrontshwaterfront
areas which are currently marinas, or could be marinas. We feel that that move is
either wrong or it flies in face of the use of the bays that might be wisest. That's
I thought that I have as a private citizen doesn't get into this Environmental
Impact Statement, and so I didn't put into the CAC report.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Mr. Garrell, I--you've got me lost. Why are you
talking about an Environmental Impact Statement? I don't understand why we didn't
have the report from the CAC at the time we were doing the SEQR process and SEQR
hearing. We've already done the SEQR process. We done the SEQR hearing. We're
here for a public hearing and the CAC--you telling me--one, I don't have your report,
and you're telling me you're going to give it to me tomorrow? And we've already made
a determination on the SEQR. It seems you're a little late.
DR. GARRELL: No, what I'm trying to put before you here is the reason why--the
reasons why we feel--we feel that there are reasons sufficient to deny the change of
zone. That's really what's involved here. That's the statement that I wish to make.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: It sounds to me like the statement should have been
made and the report should have been submitted during the SEQR hearing and the
period of time that we were doing that.
DR. GARRELL: Jay, you'll have to remember that I also was away when you were
doing that, because I was away for the summer and I was away for a good part of
the fall. So I did not make those hearings and I'm sorry.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY:
Town Board on this zone
in opposition? Ruth?
Thank you. Anyone else on the left Ii ke to add ress the
change? (No response.) Anyone in the middle like to speak
RUTH OLIVA: Ruth Oliva, NFEC. I think we've already covered all the sewage
problems, the runoff problems, which I've already made the statement in the Envi ron-
mental Impact Statement, and I wish them to be entered into the record here, and
also I want to make two points as far as any water for a multiple use. Don't forget,
the water does come from Southold Town, not from Greenport, and there will be an
increase in their own tenous water supply. I would also like to remind the Board
that very often with the Board--changes a zone and then says. well if the Board of
Health "pproves it, that's okay. And yet we have heard so many times from the Board
of Health that it is up to the Town Board to protect and maintain the proper zoning,
because if they don't then the Board of Health finds out that their obligation to find
some sort of way of providing a sewage, or treatment that may not be exactly environ-
mentally feasible. We do believe the marina is here. We believe that the marina is
needed. and that should be continued as that, but not as a multiple use with the
traffic going in and out. We don't feel for any multiple use that would be the proper
use of this piece of property. Also, Mr. Schondebare. when you say all these other
r-
Page 12 - Zehner
uses are under the "C" Light Industrial, that's quite correct. But this piece of
property happens to be on the bay, waterfront. Greenport has tried to get some
sort of fish factory or industrial use on thei r own waterfront without any success.
The prime use of this property would be either for some sort of multiple use or for
a marina. Not for any of the industrial uses, and perhaps it would be the wisest
thing to wait for a decision on this piece of property until we do the Master Plan
and see what kind of a zone we're going to put in there. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else in the middle like to speak in opposition to this
proposed zone change?
INGEBORG FLYNN: I'm Ingeborg Flynn, and I am a person who lives across the
water from Mr. Zehner. I'm a real estate broker and appraiser and I would have
a few things to say about the zoning. I in New York State for
define spot zoning, and I quote it, "the process--spot zoning is the process or----
singling out a small parcel of land for the classification totally different
from the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and for the
detriment of the owners around the property--other owners around the property.
Spot zoning is the very antithesis of down zoning." Mr. Henderson and Bodwell,
who were employed by Mr. Zehner, calculated the area of 7.01 acres and this area
is surrounded by more than 200 acres of low density land residentially zoned. So
I consider that a very small parcel. The findings of Mr. Emilita, prepared by the
Town Board, and adopted by the Town Board, in part 4. said the change of "C"
Light Industry to "M-1" will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
The range of land uses permitted under the proposed zone wi II have less of an adverse
impact than under the existing zoning designation. In part 3. of Mr. Emilita's find-
ings, prepared for the Town Board, and adopted by the Town Board, it is stated
that the usespermitted under the "M-1" district comply more closely with the uses
proposed under the Town's Master Plan than the uses under "C" district. I would
like to point out here that the proposed Master Plan, which has not been adopted,
maybe never may be adopted. Let's look at the existing "C" Light Industry zoning
Town Code 8, section 100-80. I have the Town Code here and pages marked, if
you would like to see it. The only permitted uses are those permitted in subsection
A, 2 and 3 and Section 100-30. All other uses in "C" Light Industry are special
exceptions. That means that the Town exerts absolute control over all other uses
of the above. So all the other uses that you have mentioned here, the thi rteen or
fourteen or fifteen uses, are only going to be used by a special exception of the
Town. So the Town controls all these uses. These uses are 100-30 applies first
of all to the fi rst uses apply to Residential and Agricultural District. Subsection
A-2 applies to commercial accessory uses and the subsection A-3 applies to use by
the Town of Southold. It seems that either of those uses could have such an adverse
impact as an 82 unit motel, a 125 seat restaurant, and a bar and lineage footage
of docks--docks which could accommodate in excess of over 200 boats. In Article 11
of the Southold Town Code, Section 100-114, that's page 10050, it states that
prohibited uses in all--and it says, really, in all districts. Uses which by reason of
deposit of liquid or solid base in any form in such a manner or amount as to cause
permanent damage to soil or streams. The FEIS for Mr. Zehner states that three
clams were found within the boundary of Mr. Zehner's marina. Now, since you've
heard that the bounds of the Cove is a very source of shellfish, it can only
be concluded that the pollution from discharge of hydrocarbon has destroyed the
shellfish in that area. The section also prohibits any uses by reason of noise, or
which involves any dangers, fire, explosive or other hazards. Certainly the storage
of fuel and oil and storage of boats with fuel _in close proximity to sleeping
guests in a motel, certainly constitues the worst kind of hazard and the projected
traffic count peaking at a vehicle every 20 seconds and you can see potential
catastrophe. The only reason my accents bothers me a little bit. I hope
Page 13 - Zehner
.
.
you can understand me--San Juan--I and speak quite fluent in German, Greek
and French, but in Spanish I'm not as good. Finally the Code prohibits any use
which causes injury, annoyance or disturbance to any. And here the Code--the Town
Code says it agai n, to any of the surroundi ng properties, or thei r owners and occupan
and it is prejudicial to health ,safety and thei r general welfare. Now, what can cause
more injury to these surrounding property owners then the complete destruction of the
values of their property? And here you're giving one person a tremendous increase
of its value and all the surrounding owners you give a complete destruction of the
values of their property. Is 2,300 vehicles operating 24 hours a day a mere annoyance
or disturbance? Is the noise and the transpassing emanating from the proposed project
a source of a mere annoyance, or is this disturbance from this project a totally des-
tructive and destruction of the environment? And that is, gentlemen, what I have
to say. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY:
to speak in opposition?
Thank you.
Sir?
I s there anyoner else in the midd Ie would Ii ke
JOSEPH KNIZAK: My name is Joseph Knizak. I'm a neighbor of Howard's. I
purchased the house there. I knew it was zoned for light industry. I wasn't
concerned about that. Simply I can't see a sardine factory or a warehouse going
up on that property on the waterfront, especially with prices of waterfront property.
That road there, I put my life on the line every weekend in the summer, trying to
mow my lawn, because of the traffic that is existing now. They ride over my lawn
because the road is only 16 feet wide. I have access to my house and when my
grand chi Id comes out there she can't even go out there with a three wheel bi ke
with my wife, because the cars coming from the tennis courts, swimming pool, the
bungalows out on the end, and the marina. I've asked the people from both sides
if they would notify their customers to slow down when they go by the four houses
that exist. Next to Howard I haven't gotten anywhere with them. They have signs
on their property and they have all kinds of restrictions for them, but not for us.
We're open season. Now, if they're going to put up a motel, a restaurant, tennis
courts, swimming pool clubs, marinas, what chance do we have in this area? And
tonight I hear about three clams. There are professional baymen in there every
si ngle day clamming, so there's got to be more than three clams. I mean I don't
know what that three clam bit is. And I would like to see this thing denied, and
I'd rather take my chances with light industry. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else in the middle like to speak in
opposition to the proposed zone change? (No response.) Anyone on the right?
Sir.
STEVE LATSON: Steve Latson, Secretary of Southold Town Baymens Association.
Just to clear up the matter of shellfishing. That place does produce a lot of clams,
and I was talking to a friend recently and he said for every clam he caught, he
caught an undersize scallop. There are many oysters there also he reported.
Basically it's insane if you do this project. If you let that place change at all
you are selling that natural habitat down the tubes. It's as simple as that. It
doesn't have to be too fancy. There's a painting right over here. That could
be Sages. Maybe you better put a few houses here, but what you're going to
put in there, you know, forget it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment at all on the
proposed lone change?
r-
Page 14 - Zehner
MARl E ONGIONI, Attorney: Obviously the issue at hand is not a simple matter, and
it is definitely a public policy consideration and decision that has to be made with
regard to Southold Township and the development of this area. My clients have every
intention of mitigating to every extent passi ble all of the adverse effects that may occur
as a result of the project as it develops, whether it be specifically as it was identified
in the prior documents, or if that changes. They have every intention of cooperati ng
and mitigating to every extent possible. I think it would be to the detriment of the
Town to allow the use of the area to remain as it is now. It would definitely be in
the interest of the development of the Town for the future if the area changes from
light industrial. Yes, the area could only develop by special exception with the Town's
approval. However the Town Boards, Planning Boards do change, and detrimental uses
could develop in the area and I think that it would be in the best interests of the
community to proceed with the zone change at this point. I also think that some of
the opponents seem to be confused as to the purpose of this hearing tonight. It's not
to discuss the project itself. It's ,to discuss the feasibility and the benefits of a zone
change in the area, and there seemed to be some confusion in that. That, basically,
is the extent of what I have to say. As the Board recognized earlier today, the
project as it has been defined to date, could change at any time, and it could be
a motel, it could be a marina, it could be one or both, it 'could be all three of the
proposed uses. At this point it's undetermined and the fact that we are applying
for a change of zone is not synonymous with the project as it was defined.
COU NC I LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Counselor, I'm a little confused with your request
for a change of zone. You're down there saying you want to put in a motel, a
restaurant and a marina. And if you look at the "C", which is what you have now,
you're allowed to have a marina. You're allowed to have a restaurant. But actually
if you wanted a restaurant and forgot about the motel, you wouldn't even have to
come in to us for a zone change, you'd go right to the Z BA for your special exception.
Okay? But you want a zone change. You want to go to an "M".
MS. ONGIONI: "M-l".
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Well, the "M" gives you the motel. Gives you a
marina. Doesn't give you a restaurant. You're asking for three things, none of
which are allowed, all three under either the "C" or an "M". It's sort of like if
you had the restaurant already and effect under your "C", which is allowed, plus
your mari na, and then you wanted to go to an "M", then maybe you grandfather
in your restaurant. But you don't have one. And you're not allowed one under
the "M". So you've got me totally confused as to what itis you're applying for
in thi s appli cation.
MS. ONGIONI: If we're not allowed a restaurant under the "M", obviously a
restaurant would not be built. This application was prepared several years ago,
and it has developed along the way. With the pending Master Plan this application
could really be academic because the uses----
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: You've generated a lot of activity in something that
could be academic.
MS. ONGIONI: It could be. You're absolutely correct, but the process got started
and it's being concluded.
COU NC I LMAN SCHONDEBARE: But what do you want though?
MS. ONGIONI: These three uses are allowed under the proposed Master Plan.
COUNCI LA1AI'4 SCHONDEBARE: You're not here for the proposed Master Plan. You're
here for the Code now.
Page 16 - Zehner
.
.
COU NCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: What does this have to do with the application
before us?
MS. HUSSIE: It's just the dialogue that you had with Mr. Kelley.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: You want to engage in a philosophical conversation,
I'd be glad to close the public hearing and I'll discuss it with you ad infinitum.
However, Mrs. Terry has to type up all this little dialogue.
MS. HUSSIE: Oh, deal.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Yes, and she's busy enough as it is.
MS. HUSSIE: Okay. Then you're not giving me an answer?
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Correct.
MS. HUSSIE: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else like to make any comments on this application?
Howard?
HOW ARD ZEH NER: Howard Zehner. I'm the owner of Youngs Boatyard and Marina
over which all this controversy is taking place. I just want to say a few things.
We understood about two years ago that the Master Plan was forthcoming, but it
never seemed to be getting there, and we felt the only way we could go was to
apply for an "M-1" zone to satisfy a Planning Board request to the Town Board
that there was a dire need for motels in the Township. That there hadn't been
any new motels in 20 or 25 years, and they thought out site would be good for
motels. There are many motels situated along the waterfront. The people that
go to motels like water activities and like the scenery. There's nothing wrong
with that, and we have property that's been unused for the 16 years I've been
here. It's bay-front property. It's looking at Shelter Island. We have eight
and a half acres of upland, four acres of underwater. The eight and a half acres
of upland, only about four acres are used, and that could even be reduced in scope.
In other words, if we didn't store as many boats inside we would have more property
if we removed some inside storage buildings which are kind of falling apart anyway.
So it was a natural to consider the request for motel units by the Planning Board.
In all honesty our first choice was for condominiums - that terrible word "condominiums"
and the Planning Board did not like or approve the condominiums. The density is'
much less. We're talking about 30 condominiums. They wanted motel units. We
almost reluctantly went along with this. I'm sure the motel units are my cup of tea,
no,- is transient usage is my cup of tea around our nice docks and boaters and
expensive boats, but this could probably be handled. To make a long story short
we"-e here because we didn't know when or if the Master Plan was going to be
approved. and admited Iy we look silly now that the Master Plan's fi nal hearing is
the 22nd. a Thursday coming up in a couple of weeks, and it may well be finalized
and approved, at which time we would again, by exception, have permission to put
motels on our property because we have more than five acres avai lable. So that's
why we're here. We're here because of timi ng. We would li ke to pursue this, not
because We have negative thoughts about the Master Plan, but because we started
something and we would like to follow it through. With regard to some of the comments
I'm just going to mention a few. Many of the comments tonight are either exaggerated
01- not true. For example. when one Steve Latson and stands up and talks about the
fantastic shellfishing in the marina, in the basin, he's really not being fair. Because
he's not allowed to walk on that basin. That basin bottom's owned and taxed are
paid an that basin by individuals. He is not allowed in there unless he has permission.
r-
Page 15 - Zehner
MS. ONGIONI: Absolutely.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Are you willing to withdraw your application for the
restaurant if you go for the change of zone to an "M"?
MS. ONGIONI: I would have to consult with my client about that.
that needs to be decided at this point.
don't think
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: You can't have the restaurant in an "M".
COU NC I LMAN STOUTEN BURGH: I don't thi nk we're in a bargai ni ng position here.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Just trying to clarify it. You can't have a restaurant
in an "M", why are we going to an "M" when the application requests a restaurant?
That's the confusion that is here.
MS. ONGIONI: Well, the confusion will be clarified.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: This is the public hearing.
MS. ONGIONI: It will be clarified at a later date. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Marie; Anyone else like to speak on this
application? Alice?
ALICE HUSSIE: I don't have a definite statement, but I did want to ask Mr.
Schondebare: In your dialogue with Mr. Kelley you referred to an "M-1" zone
perhaps being a little bit better than a "C" Industrial. Did you not?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Yes, for a wetlands parcel, does it not make more
sense to go to an "M" rather than the present "C", considering the special exceptions
that are allowed under a "C" for a wetlands parcel.
MS. HUSSIE: 0 kay, but the general gist of it was that "M-l" would be better than
a lIell.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: That's what my question was to the gentleman.
MS. HUSSIE: All right, and I kind of got the feeling that you would prefer an
"M-1" over the "C" had being given an opportunity to make the decision.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: You mayor may not have the correct feeling.
MS. HUSSIE: My question is: if one were to have a piece of industrial property,
would you be in favor if one were to ask for a multiple zoning change? A change
to multiple zoning?
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: I f I had a "C" and someone wanted to come in to a
change to an "M"?
MS. HUSSIE: Yes. Given all of the----
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I own the "C" property.
MS. HUSSIE: You own it. I own the "C". Whoever owns the "C" property and
they wanted to upgrade it to "M", what would your feeling be?
Page 17 - Zehner
.
.
. .'
I would Ii ke Mr. Latson to tell us who he has received written permission from to
clam in that basis, which is man-made and taxed for. There are many such thoughts
and expressions by people here that are absolutely untrue. Our Town Board and
its consultant, Mr. Emilita, have looked thoroughly into our situation, from an unbiasec:
point of view, and have come to some positive findings--they call them negative finding
we say positive findings, and we just would like this process to continue and for them
to consider the zone change at their earliest opportunity. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board?
CHRISTOPHER KELLEY: Just to rebuttal Mr. Zehner's comments, I'd like to point
out to the Board that he is a minority owner of the bottom-land of that cove. And
in fact the neighboring properties own the majority of that bottom-land, and itis my
understanding, and I've discussed this with Mr. Forchelli, who is the President of
the Bayview Realty Corporation, who's petition I've submitted, that it is fine with him
that shell-fishermen are there and can harvest the shellfish crop, and in fact, he's
discussed with us the donation of that bottom-land to appropriate Nature Conservancy
or other holding entity for the preservation of that bottom-land. It seems to me a
bit outrageous that someone--anyone would suggest that somebody has the right, wi lIy,
nilly, to destroy shellfish resources because they own the bottom-land, and I'd try to
point that out to the Board.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to comment? Any Town Board
members like to comment? (No response.) If not, I'll close this hearing.
Hearing closed at 9:08 P.M.
* * *
/ ';C , /
/.> . /C ~----- .
/~.&'t:.-[: L<..--/~~2Jx~
V / Judith T. Terry c/'
Southold Town Clerk
.
.
BAYVIEW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP.
120 Mineola Boulevard
P.O. Box 31
Mineola, New York 11501
January 5, 1987
Hon. Francis Murphy, Supervisor
and
Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Application of Howard Zehner (formerly Southport
Development Corp.) for a Change of Zone
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
Bayview Realty Development Corp. is opposed to the above appli-
cation for a Change of Zone.
In the past, we have filed applications to use our property for
residential purposes and one application is presently pending.
To approve the above application would have serious consequences
on our proposed residential use.
Accordingly, kindly note our opposition to the application.
Very truly yours,
"
BAYVIEW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP.
I
~
~
resident
JDF/js
.'. ,-ro
cZt-:Jj~L;~ ~/tA~d :Mj:z~
: '-~" .-'
_ /,,, /'4 /,C /" '77-' / ~/ /, l I~
F' 'c (';/(c<Jh~ J:U,'''':I'''&:.:~
,.,,'.... -. 't/'"t,'1n1o (/
.,--.--"
PETITION PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW
SECTION 265 IN PROTEST AGAINST THE
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE UPON THE PETITION OF
HOWARD ZEHNER (FORMERLY'SOUTHPORT
DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR A CHANGE
FROM lIel! TO 11M-III.
The undersigned as an adjacent property owner and
owner of the lot with Suffolk County Tax Map number
{ IOGO~05:>-O'.5-I)".'i
lOOO-053-05-l2.3^ fronting on Main Road in Southold with
additional frontage on Sage Cove, Shelter Island Sound,
and the Zehner property, constituting more than twenty
(20%) percent of the property adjacent to the subject
property does hereby protest the change of zone as
noticed for public hearing and demands that any vote on
said change of zone be subject to a three-fourths (3/4)
majority vote as required by Town Law ~265.
'-fJO'//') .' ',::~~. -~: -. '. (- .'~- ,,1 '
t2f ?c-r.L~~/0<:!-/-4C:t4
" . 't ... ,-'... v' i!
i/1~jm (?t"/d,~;<-,f{-::::::!t~r
.
.
PETITION PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW
SECTION 265 IN PROTEST AGAINST THE
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE UPON THE PETITION OF
HOWARD ZEHNER (FORMERLY SOUTH PORT
DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR A CHANGE
FROM Ilell TO 11M-Ill.
NAME OF OWNER:
Joseph and Marie Knizak
SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER:
1000-053-05-11.2
The undersigned as an adjacent property owner, does
hereby protest the change of zone as noticed for public
hearing and demands that any vote on said change of zone
be subject to a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote as
required by Town Law 5265.
(1
--i:a'
() j/' 0 I
1U C~j1--L-"- 0(Z GV;l (?/~
L
, t, 7
- -~---~--~-----
a~.0:,2S~?~)r:%a:i,
~ 1~,:~ /
/-4?~r>I &!kd~pj>;; ~!C~
_ - '........,.... ;;;/~~;.'r")"th~Ir;'~.y
PETITION PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW
SECTION 265 IN PROTEST AGAINST THE
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE UPON THE PETITION OF
HOWARD ZEHNER (FORMERLY SOUTH PORT
DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR A CHANGE
FROM I'ell TO 11M_Ill.
NAME OF OWNER:
Joseph IV. Suda 4/"7 NOSe 111.5uPiI (}7f!
SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER,
1000-053-05-10
The unde~signed as an adjacent p~ope~ty owne~, does
he~eby p~otest the change of zone as noticed for public
hea~ing and demands that any vote on said change ot zone
be subject to a three-fou~ths (3/4) majo~ity vote as
requi~ed by Town Law 5265.
(
~~~
.v
-)'1 /_ 1", ci "--/
/: 7'/(" /
{t<'--:T-/-(
..~,". '~'-./~ /
<"::";- ~ // . "{ ./,./'/./(:" ".
- ~j--'<-f'" ,-'t.: . . (.,
~ ;1/;; A' f)) //;<,--..:'--- ,
, - {/ / '.r Yl?~"J/(,.,.(;//;>'/ ~
! . n'~/i/{."
..",,/'
.'
TFLfPHONF
(516) 765-1801
RECEIVED
I,' ~! 7 1987
.
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
To"'" <:10.1. C:""thold
r
\,
---
January 6, 1987
To: Southold Town Board
From: Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
Re: Southport Development
After reading the Environmental Impact Statement lEIS) and its
addendum for the Southport proposal, the Conservation Advisory
Council ICAC) hereby advises that a change of zone in the area
under consideration from C-Light Industrial IC-L1) to M-1 General
Multiple Residence be denied.
Denial is recommended for the following reasons:
*
Sewage: There is no way to insure the proper treatment of
the sewage generated in an area which is lined by clay soil
and which is subject to frequent flooding. We believe this
to be true even if the figure suggested in the report (15,000
gallons per day for treatment) were realistic.
*
Runoff: The square footage required for parking and the
numbers of parked vehicles would produce a terrific runoff
problem in the basin.
*
Flooding: Cesspools, catch basins and septic fields will be
overwhelmed at times of coastal high waters, i.e. storm tides,
or during periods of heavy rain, causing toxic substances,
nutrients and bacteria to quickly reach the bay.
*
Shellfishing:
to the basin
of the three
Closure of the section of the Peconic Bays contiguous
in which the project lies will be a certain consequence
items above.
*
Wetland destruction: The consequent expansion of the access
road to accommodate increased traffic will destroy adjacent
wetlands, especially in the sector east of the boulevard.
- Page 2 -
The inadequacies of the EIS and the overblown scope of the
development speak for themselves. We therefore recommend
the upgrading of the current marina within the definition of
current zoning instead of Southport.
Thank you.
'f-'~I /- I~/", i,; " '",
/ / J <-( '~r. _ C:}__ .-. -
Martin H. Garrell, Chairman
Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Counci I
MHG /ljc
S'C)(.)~rl-
.
~'O\\I/q
. ............ ............ ............ .~J. v....~J\ J I.... '"
411
LOTS & ACREAGE
Nassau-Suffolk
SOUTHAMPTON
413
LOTS &
~.
C
E
f~tIOoav,..betw
arrhOvlngan
1s..IlMAYFAIIl:IW
iJAMIN/
118.>>1600
"ETH (
'SQ.Fl-
"J1ClIOg,Fr*,
ore$""f8~~~~:..n
'",d now Detore
lOOwll,1eC1C!y!O
lter,tolllonovo
'H;.fWP
~o.
IfIn ~
lnvt'$tmf
ypnlurf,'
"".50111
nE'~ff~
lneOtcol
cCKllllItJl;,
I'I'QUfSt.
S
"T LOCATIONS
rs 5l.700.000
,n n9>O.OOO
. 71U46--0100
,"P,)(lc:kloOOHg'$
FERING...
IUE PACKAGE
'S a. Home OWlltU
~c.dn'E"~5Kl
00& bixlHI(urrfonllv
,oCllc,,"nl 101 0 lJrm.
lW"",lhbl'OU11OfK1-
~ fJtanl cOlll1
CR(
,,~paro't'ly()(can
~ lor'lO lotPOrolPlv
10890.000
mum
......
(
,,,
<<
<,
..,
WAIt'.l('r
""""
~If'
:t: il c.J.{ Y
Y:q/!?7
.--c'
/J/J') <<::. ~
.
.
PETITION PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW
SECTION 265 IN PROTEST AGAINST THE
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE UPON THE PETITION OF
HOWARD ZEHNER (FORMERLY SOUTHPORT
DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR A CHANGE
FROM IIC'1 TO 11M-III.
NAME OF OWNER,
~'/illiam Kilian
SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER: 1000-053-05-12.2
The undersigned as an adjacent property owner, does
hereby protest the change of zone as noticed for public
hearing and demands that any vote on said change of zone
be subject to a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote as
required by Town Law 5265.
} I, \
/'- t /' i /'-- ' II'
1 [l(4t~)11/ of-; ~l~:P\-2;[/
ar '~:i;~z;lZ:~~f.c""
,;7 . ~
'I . ',', _, ~ {/
~/P1 (0}<'J7c'i;6{2ug;.~.J---
,/ ~. ;0'...... {/'~:T \;nJlt;'l~&--~
............
't~~._.-
PETITION IN PROTEST AGAINST
THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE UPON THE PETITION OF
HOWARD ZEHNER (FORMERLY SOUTHPORT
DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR A CHANGE
FROM "C" TO "M 1".
!,Ji\~.!E OF OHNER:
Murray and Selma Jacobs
SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER:
1000-053-05-9
The undersigned, as a neighboring property owner,
does hereby protest the change of zone as noticed for
public hearing.
if
~
),.~
V\I V
"
, '?f'?
,. it
~; ..:: / .A' ':-It I,' r
J"_ v ,. .. Ii
..-/ ~ ,.
\. " -,,/.,(."=
. '~J....'(_' ./
/5/17
I /,
i /5-/;' .]
". /
" . '", '/'~'-'
~1' . e, ./.' .' ?'i.t.,
;zf :;;e{'1t (/Jt:cfkC
," J ~y.' .,! '''_'''~> '
. ~.;"U-'flA, f.-; ~/.j.l/--/'-l/~J//..'
,... t./U,rL/ .-",. . . / ~ .
.
~4 .'.,
. .{t!J0<--C y~:;~t{;)~77Z-~e..~
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. !:lox 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765.1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ZEHNER (formerly Southport) CHANGE OF ZONE SEQR FINDINGS
December 30, 1986
WHEREAS, Howard Zehner, d/b/a Youngs Boatyard & Marina (formerly Southport
Development Corp.) has proposed a change of zone from "C" Ught Industrial District
to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located south of the
Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New
York. consisting of 12.461 acres; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared and accepted for
review, and was the subject of a public'hearing on February 4, 1986 and recessed
to February 25,1986; and
WHEREAS. an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared
and received for review, and together with the Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement
was the subject of a public hearing on April '8, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Southold caused a Final Environmental Impact Statement to be
prepared and the same was accepted for review; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the Final Environmental Impact Statement on
November 18, 1986 and recessed to December 2, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the comment period of the Final Envi ronmental Impact Statement has
expi red; and
WHEREAS, 6NYCRR 617.9(c) requires that the Town Board, as lead agency, make
findings before rendering a decision on this action based on the Final Environmental
Impact Statement; now, therefore, be it
RESO LVED that pursuant to 6NYCRR 619.9(c) the Town Board of the Town of
Southold makes the following findings for the above described change of zone petition:
~~~^'
Page 2 - Zehner
.
.
1. All requirements of SEQR, including Article 8 of the State Environmental
Conservation Law, Part 617 of 6NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of
Southold have been met.
2. The Town Board has given consideration to the Final Envi ronmental Impact
Statement in making its findings.
3. The uses permitted under the "M-1" General Multiple Residence District
more closely comply with the uses proposed under the Town's Master Plan than the
uses permitted under the "C" Light Industrial District.
4. The change of zone from "C" Light Industrial to "M-1" General Multiple
Residence District for the premises on Sage Boulevard will not have a significant
adverse effect on the envi ronment. The range of land uses permitted under the
proposed zone will have less of an adverse impact than under the existing zoning
designation.
(a) Specific land uses permitted under the "M-1" District may, however,
cause significant adverse environmental impacts unless proper mitigating
measures are instituted.
(b) ,he Final Environmental Impact Statement for the change of zone does
not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt for the particular combination
of land uses proposed as the development project "Zehner" that:
1. Adverse surface runoff conditions will not result from a develop-
ment proposed under the change of zone.
A sanitary disposal system can be designated without adversely
affecting groundwater.
A sub-surface drainage system can be
adverse impacts on the surface waters
the change of zone.
That satisfactory access to the site of the change of zone can
be provided without a significant adverse environmental impact
resulting therefrom.
That the process of removal of the spit near the center of the
site will not have a significant environmental impact in terms of
ti rbidity, affect on shellfish within and adjacent to the cove,
upland disposition of the sediments and off-site impacts of upland
disposal.
(c) The Final Environmental Impact Statement does propose mitigation
measures to address items (4b) 1 through 5 which, when applied to
a complete and duly submitted site plan application, may mitigate
2.
3.
designed that wi II preclude
surrounding the site of
4.
5.
Page 3 - Zehner
.
.
adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
(dl Such a complete and duly submitted site plan is not and cannot be
requi red at the stage of the change of zone, thus fully developed
mitigation measures applicable to all of the conceivable uses permitted,
and alternative combinations, sizes, and locations of these uses are
not available for scrutiny pursuant to SEQR at this time.
(el When complete site plans are duly submitted to the Town under the
proposed "M-1" District, further review under SEQR wi II be necessary
to insure that there will be no adverse environmental impact in terms
of surface runoff, sanitary system design and operation, subsurface
drainage, access, spit 'removal, and full compliance with the zoning
ordinance for the development known as "Zehner" (formerly Southportl
or any other particular combination of uses.
Conclusion:
1. Consistent with social, economic' and other considerations essential to the
Town of Southold, from among the presently reasonable and avai lable alternatives
thereto, the change of zone requested minimizes adverse environmental effects with
respect to the existing zoning designation to the maximum extent practicable.
2. Consistent with social, economic, and other considerations essential to the
Town of Southold, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse impacts revealed during
the SEQR process for the requested change of zone will be minimized or avoided by
further analysis under SEQR during the site plan process for "Zehner" (formerly
Southportl or any other combination of uses proposed, and by incorporati ng fully
those mitigative measures into the final project plans.
* * *
Copies to the following:
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Robert A. Greene, DEC, Stony Brook
Howard Zehner
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
NYS Legis. Comm. on Water Resource Needs of L.r.
NYS Department of State
Southold Town Planning Board
.
.
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CU:R.k
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATlSTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 20, 1986
Southold Town Planning Board:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(5]6] 765-1801
Howard Zehner asked that we transmit a copy of his presentation at the
FE IS South port heari ng on November 18th.
~\~~
~cz;r--
I
" 'io';,(;:: .,.,;.:i', .':",',0 ,}. ..\;,,,_..~(
. n'o "~'( .,ro S^G- BL"
"-." J?< -;r~/:.7';.;";'~:?. j\ "."" C ~:t.'
., r ....~"L..,.'I, d. Y. 11'1<...
Note:
.c
Ering backup to Hearing eg.)
Supreme Court Decision etc.
November 18, 1986
TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
H.Z. FEIS HEARING PRESENTATION NOTES
I've owned Young's Marina for 16 years, times have changed.
I am now the proponent of the FEIS we are considering.
1. Dukp Latham dredged my marina prior to my closing in 1970 and
agreed to first payments 1 year later. We had no water for l~
years and had 2-2000 gallon deliveries per week during peak
usage. No dredging or dock permits were required until Sept. 1973,
no zoning restrictions until July 1975.
....1
. '1
~".J
2. Over two years ago I entered into a conditional contract with Mr. ';
Fishetti to sell my Marina because I knew in the fall of 1986 _
now - I would have no family help. My youngest is now in her
2nd ye~r of college, my second youngest is in his final year of
college, the other 3 have graduated from college and are working
elsewhere.
A. I cannot run the Marina as a family marina, the same
demise as other family business in today's world. This
is due to:
1. Expense and difficulty of having help.
2. Insurance problems and costl
3. Rules and regulations which inhibit quick response
to conditions.
4. The overall cost of doing business today.
3. FEIS BACKGROUND:
A. The Planning Board has recommended to the Town Board in
writing that motels be permitted on my property due to
need and location, etc. No new motels have been built in
the township in 20 years. Further, reasonable occupancy
-
e(
eC
,
",
rate over the 365 day year is questionable and may not be
financislly feasible, nevertheless Mr. Fishetti agreed.
It was necessary to request a zoning change to M-I
(for motels) because the proposed master plan permitting
and encouraging motels on my property had fiO foreseeable
approval date. Since master plan motels are now to be
permitted by exception, the FEIS approval effort is not
wasted.
B. Mr. Stoutenberg, a most devout environmentalist, told me,
"I hav~ no quarrel with marine expansion within existing
boundaries - God knows no new marinas can be created."
C. I have explained to the Town snd Planning Boards that
marinas may represent the biggest and oldest economic
input to the town, i.e. 2,000 slips @ $1,000 per slip
economic input per year = $2 million with no burden on
schools, etc. and that does not include boater guest
spending.
D. Every conceivable study has been done of our property _
DEIS, DEIS ADD., FEIS., including:
1. Pollution tests - note: opposite shore residents...r:."lIl1r,o
pump-out stationcu.,( ,rl"~'*-LEO -4&Wn!F PtF?,5.
2. Underwater soil samples for upland deposit _ very
low mercury and contaminents.
3. Flushing situation - improved by removal of spit.
h. Upland test boring.
S. Bird studies, fish studies, plant studies.
6. Greenport water
7. Suffolk County approved denitrification sewerage
,
ec
eC
treatment (replaces h leaching systems, 4 septic,
4 cesspools) at sand pocket surrounded by 65ft. of
clay depth - best possible situation.
8. All questions and negative comments addressed and
,.-....
~.
resolved by the FEIS.
Finally, Mr. Fishetti spent over $100,000 over the 2 years
(I can justify the $100,000). He had to give up the
project because his 2 year conditional contract expired
and he was not willing to spend more time and money on
the plan. I have taken over this project as a current,
licensed P.E. and owner of the property and will seek
the support of banks and joint venture inves~ors to
~ursue this necessary project.
4. Prononents of FEIS Proiect
Association of Marine Industries (no formal vvte was taken)
Lion Members (no formal vote was taken)
Chamber of Commerce
Planning Board
Paul Stoutenberg (specifically the marina portion of the FEIS)
Henderson & Bodwell
Police Reoort (local)
Fire Dent. Report (local)
Traffic En~ineering Report (State)
Anthonfy Conforti letter of 2/4/86
~a~t0rs for whom I provirle iIl10t ~
1.,~..j....+-V (~n~r~""""''''.'
. . "" J, - , " '.1 I ~~, ,
1nn m~intcnance)
Speaker~ at the November 18, 1986 FEIS hearing
.(
.;
s. OODoncnt's Considerntions
A. Marty Carrell - (Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council) - nasty etc.
B. Ruth Oliver - (Environmentalist) _ has some good ideas
(inlpt nred~in~), h3S othpr ~on~prns W0 h~v~ answered.
,~ .
Frank Bear - (Water Resources) - has concerns, does
research etc. But, we have municinal water and we can-
not pollute ground water in our clay situation. Further,
no drinking water wells exist within ~ mile.
D, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Weissman - (2 interveners) _ S to 8
years here, have no dock or boats. Basin commercialism has
existed since 1890, marina since 19S0.
~.
Objections by Eaymen's Assoc. and Bureau of Shell Fisheries
Arguments Are unfounded and A moot point since basin bottom
is privately owned and surface activity can be controlled
by inlet entrance and egress.fees.
6. Important Considerations
No such project,0ven with MAximum permits and controls is
environMentally secure in tOday's world, unless the owner/
onerator is concerned and has a professional engineering
bAckground or enuivalent. His personal observations or strict
designated authority must be practiced on a daily basis. Both
j.l,." i'ishC'tti, the previous ~"EIS sponsor, and myself', have the
ni~~p~28ry ~rof?~sian31 2ngine0ring background Hnd ;~oncern
whi2h is ~or8 import8nt to this nroipct than 1ny permit or
',:)ntr,ll.
In 16 ypnrR I l~~Vp h3d oIlly one environmpntally bad
situation, a S gallon oil spill which was totally cleaned UP
. -.'.
.:.~1 .-~'U nours.
-
.'
.
As .n example of real control, starting in the spring of 1985,
the Suffolk County Board of Health reouired that commercinl
swimminrr noals h8V2 8 pool oper8tor on hnnd nt all tines. This
operator had to receive 16 hours of ClAssroom instruction, TIass
3 writtpn exam, 3n~ be licensed by the Health Deportment. My
wife, Dorothy ZehnerJreceived this operator's license in the
spring of 198:;.
7.
, 1 'c:' 'I '
GCS3t~_ \~81t 'gterJ
V3. Inland (Fresh Water) Concerns
A10ng wi~h the prover consideration of proper morina
man8gement, o~e fActor that is given to us by God, makes coastal
W3t2~ m~n1~~mcnt much easi~r ~h8n in18nd water management, :hat
13 3imnly, ~~d81 flu3hing.
Althou~h my inlet dredging permit is for a 20ft. wide dredged
channel. the actual channel present is 120 ft. wide at high tide
and 100 ft. ~ide at low tide. PElS tests have shown no pollution
in thn ~ntir2 ~8si~ ?xcent 8 local condition on
th? opO;Jsito
-Irl:j/"~)
SWlm/, 'lmOngst
shore~
Flushing keeps that reading localized. Boaters
their
b03t3 ~0r~ du~ing the summer, 1!c3ds on land Are open 2ll hours a
j8Y, ~nd boaters wOllld be pxpelled, TIer their slip qgreempnts
'~.Jith Y.JUDf!IEj .l'>~rin3, If they discharge pollutAnts int,) the b8sin.
Jote ~~3~ thp "brown tid~'r j.n the entire Peconic 3ay h33
{iis~1n,;:)'7:''1r.:;rl 'l'J'c, t,,~ ~,~d;11 flnshiTlp'c
?'T 'J+-, ,-:- --:-~1 '1 t
'1" -1.-. ::.:;-
'" ..~,
".
';?;."
:'r,')llUi::'~d Ff-1t:?Y':l in Southolrl Town i~~ ~"Iill Cr'pt-";k, p011ut;~d by hif!h\-Jay
"",~..,C'.'"' ,~.'.,J.. "',---,","",.' ',.'." ",;..o,t.'. ~/i.'i-'" (~ .
- , -, , - - '. :, -'- '- )..' - ,::, ,D,ut'!:'-'
(.'
~\J':')t~n', n8S
a very narrow, shallow inlAt, under the rRilway b~id~e, and at times
~~D~:_~l...) .,-':'"".-;on vn'~ ...-- orf"Ynt::ntloneo pollution. It I s glmost imnossible
.:
.'
to pollute tidal waters.
By contrast, inland water pollution, ie. non-tidal ground
"'-,d
water, lakes, streams, etc. ~ a tough act to follow. Contam-
inents sit and accumulate and rarely decrease except by rain
action and evaporation. Should not the real environmentalists
stand up and shift their area of concern to fresh water problems
and let owners1with the present regulations and proper main-
tenance of salt water activities, with the help of God's tidal
action, rest in pegce.
Very truly yours, )
~ ~ f1J~d.,t
Howard H. Zehner FElS sponsor
,
(owner and licensed professional
engineer) ,
r" "'--n ,.-r,
f\..t.~tl\/t:..,
.
.
r~ (Y1 ~ /~ 'CL:'
\..1... i 1'- 1_)....,.
TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY
Tow"" ('in..!. c;~l!rhci:::~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
RIVP":'HHEAD, NEW YORK 11901
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. III
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
516-727-2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. NY 11937
516-324-1200
AMY B. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. LlCCIONE
.ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
October 10, 1986
Town Board
Town of South old
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Southport Development
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
I submit this letter to correct page 6 of the
comments of Frank Flynn (Exhibit "C") of the Comments of
the FEIS in the above-referenced project submitted by
cover letter dated October 9th. At the second to last
paragraph it is stated, "On this more realistic basis,
the indicated property value, as is, is $1,600,000".
That $1,600,000 figure should have read "$1,160,000",
which would make it consistent with the tabulated
figures listed immediately above that on the same page.
Sinc,erely,
(0u;tL ivtfl
Christopher Kelley
CK/bb
cc: Frank Flynn
Henry Weismann
~'0
\O\\IJl\~
.
.
.
"~ ~
LEGAL NOTICE
ll.ci "A '
1('JOt<
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of
Southold wi II hold a public hearing at 8: 00 P.M., Tuesday, November 18,
1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the
Final Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the petition of
Southport Development Corp. for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial
District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on
property located south of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side
of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres.
Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed
to permit the development of a motel complex.
SEQR lead agency is the Town Board of the Town of Southold. A copy
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the
Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is
available for inspection during regular business hours.
DATED: October 21, 1986.
JUDITH T. TERRY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
* * *
PLEA~E PUBLISH ONCE, OCTOBER 30, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK,
TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.
Copies to the following:
~~~
The Long Island Traveler-Watchman
The Suffolk Times
Town Board Members
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Southold Town Planning Boara.v--
Southold Town Trustees
So uthport Development
David Einilita
Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley
~ 4~p c;j~. · '1;'\]," '_~
-//tf'V'- f~r=;ce[~"li\VI'!'\ \
TWOMEY. LATHAM. SHEA & KELLE ," " --'. .' I
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 0T . a " \
33 WEST SECOND STREET n i Ou i I. 4 L86 ~, j l
POBOX 398 1 Ut ,:..::-t
RIVERHEAD. NEW YORK 11901 HOLD
TOWN OF SOUT .
ORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11937
516-324-1200
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA, III
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
516-727-21BO
AMY B. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM.
MAUREEN T. LICCIONE
'ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
October 10, 1986
Town Board of
Southold Town
Ma in Road
South old , NY
the Town of Southold
Hall
11971
RE: Proposed Master plan
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
By an article in Newsday dated September 24, 1986,
page 29, it has corne to the attention of Messrs. Frank
Flynn and Henry Weismann, intervenors in the Southport
Development application for rezoning, that the Board is
now accepting comments on the potential environmental
impact of the proposed Master Plan. Accordingly, I
resubmit my letter of July 11, 1986, previously
submitted to the Board pointing out that the proposed
action of adopting a Master Plan is a Type I action
pursuant to SEQRA which is more likely than not to
require the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement, and that, in fact, an Environmental Impact
Statement is appropriate and necessary on the proposed
Master Plan because the action may have a significant
impact on the enviornment.
Si:~;;I~Jtk
C~istbPher Kelley
CK/bb
ce: Henry Weismann
Frank Flynn
6'?J~~\O\~
------
/-~
RECEiVE::
[" (\ '! ; ;: t Cl ~,' '
-'..,' 1 L j~)""
TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Tnw.... n,..,...!, C;nnrhck:
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 399
RIV1~I'U-IEAD. NEW YOHK 11901
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. III
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
516-727-2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N,Y. 11937
516-324-1200
AMY 8. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. llCCIONE
"AL.SO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
October 10, 1986
Town Boa rd
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Southport Development
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
I submit this letter to correct page 6 of the
comments of Frank Flynn (Exhibit "C") of the Comments of
the FEIS in the above-referenced project submitted by
cover letter dated October 9th. At the second to last
paragraph it is stated, "On this more realistic basis,
the indicated property value, as is, is $1,600,000".
That $1,600,000 figure should have read "$1,160,000",
which would make it consistent with the tabulated
figures listed immediately above that on the same page.
Sinc,erely,
((hJt-cv{fL
Christopher Kelley
CK/bb
cc: Frank Flynn
Henry Weismann
~0
\O\\\I\~
,-"."
~~\6'
LEGAL NOTICE
~f,\r ~ A 1Ctj~'
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of
Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 18,
1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the
Final Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the petition of
Southport Development Corp. for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial
District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on
property located south of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side
of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres.
Petitioner is desi rous of having the zoning status of the property changed
to permit the development of a motel complex.
SEQR lead agency is the Town Board of the Town of Southold. A copy
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the
Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is
available for inspection during regular business hours.
DATED: October 21, 1986.
JUDITH T. TERRY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
. . .
PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, OCTOBER 30, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK,
TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.
Copies to the following:
The Long Island Traveler-Watchman
The Suffolk Times
Town Board Members
Tow n Clerk's Bulletin Board
Southold Town Planning Boarar
Southold Town Trustees
So uthport Development
David Einilita
Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley
("'
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page three
Based on these regulations, the townwide placement
of Marine Recreation Districts in areas currently zoned
for residential use qualifies as a Type I action and
requires the preparation of a DEIS.
The Master Plan as proposed would zone other inland
water ways to marine recreation as well, although they
are currently zoned low-density residential. It is
submitted that the increased potential for more intense
development on these other creeks together with Sage
Cove certainly justifies the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement on the whole of the
Master Plan. Specifically, Wickham Creek in Cutchogue,
James Creek in Nattituck and Town Creek in Southold,
all currently abutt A Residential land uses and have
areas on their borders proposed for t'larine Recreation
under the proposed code. Likewise, the subject property
on Sage Cove is currently surrounded by residentially
zoned property and in the proposed zoning code would be
surrounded by low-density residential property in the
R80 and R40 districts.
Further justification for the requirement of a DEIS
on the proposed Master Plan because of the location of
Narine Recreational use on sensitive inland waten-lays
can be found in the comments of the Tm...n' sown
consultants, Raymond, Parish and Pine contained in a
letter dated January 27, 1986, to Supervisor Murphy from
Stewart Turner of that firm. At p. 2 of said letter
RPPW states:
The marine recreation district has been
designed to permit and encourage water-rela-
ted recreation uses on waterfront properties
that are located on inland waterways or creeks.
In the RPPW draft, transient or resort hotels
were listed as special excpetion uses and only
water-related or necessary public uses were
listed as pemitted uses. This was done to
encourage the desired uses. It would not
prohibit the special exception uses but would
require greater justification and allow the
Town to try to achieve better use of the very
limited non-residential waterfront areas.
t-~~----""
(' ( ,
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page tour
In the revised draft Marine Recreation District,
transient or resort hotels had been listed as a
permitted use instead of a special exception use
and requirements were omitted: (1) that
such use be a secondary or accessory use to a
water-related use and (2) that one-half of the
proposed marina or docking spaces or an amount
equal to one-half of the existing marina spaces be
retained in public use . . .
Most areas designated for Marine Recreation
use have been located on creeks and inland
waterways of the Town where higher densities
would often be inadvisable and great care
would be essential if hotels and motel were
permitted without special exception review.
Thus, we think that it is desirable from
planning and environmental perspectives to
require special-exception approval for hotel
proposals in order to add another step in the
review process. ...
It is probable that hotels or motels would be
more suitable in the marine business district
than in the marine recreation district, since
hotels are a commercial use and the MB
district, a basically commercial zone, is
mapped in areas that is generally not located
on inland waterways so that greater "flushing
action" would be available.
Thus, even the Town's own consultants have reached
the conclusion that the Marine Recreation District, with
its high density hotel/motel use are not appropriate for
inland waterways with poor tidal flushing such as the
subject property, and that it is not advisable from an
environmental or planning point of view to allow such
uses in these areas.
The potential negative environmental impacts of the
new zoning on marine areas is emphasized in the comments
on the plan by Orville Terry, associate research
professor at the Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY
at Stony Brook. In his letter to the Board dated
February 14, 1986, it is stated:
r-- ~
\
('
/" -....
,
Supervisor Murphy and
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page five
Members
My own special interest, as might be expected, is
in the Town's marine waters and their preservation
in present condition. I think the plan may be weak.
on this point.
Commercial development of the Sound shore is
probably acceptable because of its good
flushing characteristics. Commercial
development or dense housing development along
the creeks and bays is very different,
something I think professional planners may
fail to recognize. These are not, in general,
actively flushed and also they support shellfish
populations (which the Sound shore mostly does
not). Loss of those shellfish, through habitat
damage or bacterial pollution, is a very serious
danger, one which I don't think the Plan has
adequately recognized.
Given the comments the Board has received, the fact
that the proposed Master Plan and zoning code qualifies
as a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and given the Board's past position
on rezoning of the Southport property, it is encumbent
upon the Town Board to require the preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed
Master Plan before proceeding with the processing and
adoption of same.
S(JlZj~
Christopl:r Kelley
CK/bb
enc.
cc: Henry Weismann
Frank Flynn
,
'-
/>\.\
/-~!"~ /
\,.' /
l<
.\
"
,
.
.
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. Itl
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT lAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
RIVERHEAD. NEW YORK 11901
OCT 1 0 7988'
~16.727-2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11937
516-324'1200
AMV B. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. LIce/ONE
"ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FL.ORIDA
October 9. 1986
BY HAND
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Southold Town Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY
RE: Southport Development
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
Enclosed please find an original and five copies of
Intervenors' comments on the FEIS. Please advise once
the Board has made SEQRA findings and scheduled the
rezoning for a public hearing.
~ri/!;
CK/bb
encs.
cc: Henry Weismann
Frank Flynn
,vt~"
i,
1EC1'lED
/: /:, f) !ll
r1r.T {' " . "'~
_ ,J . j J ',><:11 'J A. /
6f' ,.7//71// /.'
L ~t.jCk':<'-G/,- L-t ./_;","_-:LLt-'-<.:,.
~r,w.. .....!...'""'. ;:::....',tt,oid /
/-;"
f'_~,'O{.LL1-
. \;: -.~,
---
----
'.
'I
.
.
~
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
-------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
-------------------------------------x
.,
COMMENTS ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT
DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF
INTERVENORS HENRY WEISMANN AND
FRANK FLYNN
Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn reside on Tarpon
Drive in Southold, in close proximity to the proposed
,>
Southport Development project in the Town of Southold.
This firm on intervenors' behalf has submitted comments
'I
on the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
on the addendum, and submit these comments on the Final
Environmenta 1 Impact Sta tement prepa red by Henderson and
Bodwell for the applicant. Included herein are comments
by Land Use Planner, Frederick F. Meyer (attached as
Exhibit "A"). of Biologist and Environmental Planner.
.
Larry Penny (attached hereto as Exhibit "BU) and
Intervenor Frank Flynn who has experience as the
operator of a large-scale commercial marina facility.
,-<-<<<<<-<<<
"
.,
Prior Submissions to the Board
The intervenors request that their prior comments
and the testimony of their experts given in written form
and orally at the hearing on this matter held on April
8, 1986, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
and on the DEIS Addendum, be incorporated herein by
reference. In large part these comments are still
applicable in that the revised submission prepared by
Henderson and Bodwell does not suffice to adequately
answer the questions posed by Szepatowski Associates,
Inc., the Town Board's Planning Consultant, as they
purported to to, nor does the new submission in any way
attempt to respond to the comments and questions raised
by the intervenors and their experts. The analysis,
over all, between the original DEIS and the Addendum,
and now the FEIS, remains faulty in that it does not
accomplish the true objectives of an FEIS of analyti-
cally evaluating reasonable alternatives to the proposed
proj ect , assess ing environmental impacts and propos ing
significant mitigation sufficient to justify the
permission of the project in spite of the identified
impacts.
.,
..
..
-2-
'\
.
.
-.
Land Use Issues
As in its prior submissions, the applicant in the
FEIS fails to address the primary issue raised by the
application which is the inconsistency of having such a
large scale intensive commercial development on such a
constrained parcel immediately adjacent to a pristine
cove and low density residential area. The application
is clearly not in conformance with the character of the
neighborhood nor with sound planning principles. Its
double and triple counting of land use areas for various
uses, and its miscalculation of the area required for
various uses, has not been rectified in the FEIS, nor
could it be while accomplishing the same numerosity and
intensity of uses. The charts and diagrams and various
technical anslyses in the FEIS have not produced one
iota of evidence supporting this unique over development
strategy for the parcel.
A second critical issue raised throughout the SEQRA
process and again not addressed in the FEIS is the
availability of sufficient access for the project.. It
is admitted by the applicant at page 4-15 that the
access is inadequate to support the project. However,
the applicant is willing to gloss over this and push
the requirement of obtaining access off to a later stage
in the planning process by stating:
-3-
,
It is recommended that prior to the time of site
plan approval, the Southport Development will enter
into an agreement with the adjacent property owners
to improve Sage Boulevard.
.
Intervenors and their counsel have been in touch
with the owners of the adjacent property who have
confirmed that they have no intention of improving the
access on their own or granting the right to the
applicant to improve the 16-foot right of way to allow
the further processing of the project.
Third, in the FEIS it is acknowledged that the
zone-change request to "M-l" General Multiple Residence
would not permit a restaurant use at the site, and that
such a use would require a use variance.
I t is beyond
belief that the applicant can seriously put forth an
application for a zone change which would require in
addition to the zone change a use variance to allow the
project it proposes. For the Board to permit this
proposal to go forward on this basis would be a serious
abuse of discretion.
Fourth, the parking propos ed for the proj ect at
page 4-19 seriously underestimates the number of parking
spaces needed for the restaurant and bar proposed. When
added to the fact that the parking area will be
diminished by boat storage space, it is more clearly
-4-
"
.
.
-.
demonstrated how good planning practices have been laid
aside in order to maximize density on the project site.
A more realistic discussion of the area required for
boat storage is contained in the comments of Frank Flynn
(Exhibit "C") and a more full discussion of the planning
issues is contained in the comments of Frederick Meyer
and the prior comments of Frederick Reuter on the
application.
Lastly, the State Coastal Management Program (CMP)
policies listed by the applicant at pages 4-20 to 4-23
are significant to this application but in a manner
converse to the manner argued by the applicant. Rather
than being consistent with those policies, the proposal
is in contravention of each and everyone of the
policies listed.
Environmental Issues
One of the most significant environmental issues
raised by the application is the potential impact on
shellfish populations in the embayment because of that
fishery's commercial value. At page 4-13 of the FEIS,
applicant dismisses this concern by saying that there
are not sufficient numbers of hard clams to be
considered commercially important and, "since the entire
basin is privately owned and taxed, the public and/or
any commercial operation has no right for fishing,
-5-
-.
shellfishing, anchoring, or touching bottom in any way
without permission of the owner(s)". The arrogance of
such a statement is beyond belief. Assuming, arguendo,
that no shellfishing were permitted in the cove, this
would not be a sufficient reason, pursuant to SEQRA, to
a) avoid assessing the impact of the proposal on
shellfishing or b) avoid the need for mitigation of such
impacts. Ownership of bottom lands does not entitle one
to destroy important food species at will. The truth of
the matter, not revealed in the FEIS, is that the
Young's Marina property owned by Mr. Zehner is only a
minor portion of the cove (3.7 acres of the underwater
land). The entire cove consists of 19.47 acres of
underwater land of which 15.77 acres, or 81% is owned by
others than Mr. Zehner, including Messrs. Flynn and
Weismann. These owners have a right to, and do, (as
does Mr. Zehner) allow local baymen to utilize the cove
as a commercial shellfish resource.
Intervenor, Frank Flynn spoke with John Monsell of
Greenport, a baymen he found clamming in the cove on
September 30,1986. Mr. Mansell informed him that he
has "made a living" out of tha t cove "a 11 summer long
with many other baymen". He stated that he and his
-6-
"
.
.
partner regularly take two bushels of little-neck clams
daily out of the cove along with approximately 500
oysters. He stated that it is one of the most
productive areas for clams on the North Fork, and the
best for oysters. Further, it is about the only
remaining area not closed because of contamination.
He stated that within the last couple of days, within a
2-hour period, he took 500 oysters and 250 little necks
within the boundaries of Zehner's Marina. He further
stated that Mr. Zehner gives him permission to clam
there. He also stated that the cove is one of the most
important areas for the life cycle of scallops and that
prior to the brown algal blume the cove was one of the
most productive scallop grounds for the baymen. This
testimony is conveyed second hand but is that of a
baymen who regularly uses the cove for shellfishing.
As is more fully pointed out in the comments of
Larry Penny, the drainage plan proposed and the sewage
disposal system proposed have severe defects and will
undoubtedly, due to their own failure, lead to contami-
nation of the cove which no amount of flushing can
relieve. As to the flushing of the cove, the appli-
cant's own data is inconclusive. The report says that
the removal of the spit extending out from the current
-7-
marina "could enhance flushing of the system".
(Appendix "A" page 27.) As stated in the assessment of
natural resources contained in Appendix "D", at
page 1 3:
The septic system for the proposed motel and
restaurant complex could represent a potential
threat to the water quality of the cove. Even with
the improved flushinR that would result from
prolect construction, the water quality of the cove
wou d be 1mpacted 1t materials from the septic
system leach into the cove. Because of the small
size of the cove, significant nutrient loads would
not dilute, therefore resulting in enrichment,
which would not only have a negative long-term
impact upon both fish and shellfish, but, by
affecting the aesthetics of the cove, would also
have a negative impact upon the project itself.
(emphasis added.)
As more fully pointed out in the comments of Larry
Penny, the denitrification system proposed, with the
exception of ni trogenous was te, will not mi t iga te the
potential grave impacts presented by sewage disposal at
this location on such a scale. As Mr. Penny points out
the few denitrification systems now installed in Suffolk
County have rarely worked up to standards. It
represents a technology that has not proved successful
in past use on Long Island. In addition, the
applicant's proposal that dumping of sewage of boats
into the cove will be prevented by its own policing
(page 4-18) cannot be relied on as satisfactory
-8-
.
.
protection or mitigation against potential pollution of
the cove from boat dumping. Likewise, the applicant's
representation (page 4-17) that "no normal maintenance
or repair of boats will be permitted on site with the
exception of minor emergency repairs" must carry little
weight. There is a high likelihood of fuel, oil and
chemical spills around the cove and at the site of the
marina due to the marina's normal business use. (See
comments of Frank Flynn, Exhibit "C").
As to water supply, it is submitted that the Board
should not take at face value the representation by the
Greenport Water District that it can provide the
necessary quantity and quality of water for the project.
Attached as Exhibit "D" is a copy of the notice put by
the Greenport Water District in its bills indicating
that "the concentration of nitrates in our water supply
has reached and sometimes exceeds the limit set for
drinking water" and that "the water should not be used
for infant ingestion without consulting your physician",
Clearly, such a tenuous water supply should not be
relied upon for massive new development in excess of
what existing zoning would provide for.
Additional environmental issues are discussed in
the comments of Larry Penny annexed hereto as Exhibit
-9-
"B". Those comments confirm that the FEIS, overall,
does little to rectify the failures and omissions of the
DEIS in terms of identifying and assessing important
environmental impacts and proposing serious mitigation
of those impacts.
Al terna t i ves
As stated in our earlier comments on the proposal,
the alternatives section of an Environmental Impact
Statement should be the document's "heart and soul".
However, nothing is done in the FEIS to remedy the
weaknesses of the alternatives section in the DEIS. The
economic analysis contained in the DEIS is more fully
critiqued in the comments of Frank Flynn annexed hereto.
The alternative section of the FEIS at page 4-32 does
not discuss a single alternative to the proposed project
and says with reference to the DEIS "the al terna ti ves
presented and discussed are the only ones that the
project sponsor has the ability, desire, resources and
economic means to consider." What the applicant's
ability, desire, resources or means to consider lS not
the issue in this proposal and is not sufficient to
comply with the requlrements of SEQRA that a reasonable
analysis of alternatives be presented.
-10-
.
.
Furthermore, the cumulative impacts of this type of
.,
development have not been considered by the applicant
although required by SEQRA.
Conclusion
As intervenors and their experts' comments on the
FEIS, on the DEIS and the Addendum thereto demonstrate
the environmental analysis of the proposal is fatally
deficient in numerous aspects. Accordingly, it is
submitted that on the basis of the environmental
analysis done to date this Board cannot make the
findings required by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 5~617.9(c)(2) that:
(i) consistent with social, economic and other
essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives thereto, the action to be carried out
or approved is one which minimizes or avoids
adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent
practicable; including the effects disclosed in the
relevant environmental impact statement, and
(ii) consistent with social, economic and other
essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed
in the enviornmental impact statement process will
be minimized or avoided by incorporating as
conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures which were identified as practicable.
Without being able to make such findings the Board
is without the power to approve this application and the
application should, therefore, be denied.
-11 -
.
.
FREDERICK F. MEYER
Municipal Planner
P.O. BOX 171
REMSEN BURG, NEW YORK 11960
325.8119 737.1119,
October 5, 1986
" -
Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley
Attorneys at Law
33 West Second Street
Riverhead, New York 11901
Re: Southport Development
Gentlemen:
At the request of Henry Weismann and
Frank Flynn I have read and analyzed the FElS
prepared by Henderson and Bodwell for a change
of zone at Conkling Point.
My critique is
attached and should be forwarded to the
Southold Town Board as lead agency in the
matter.
Sincerely,
~ AJVLJ. 0- ~ Vl
FFM:MM
Encl.
Frederick F. Meyer
A PLANNING CRITIQUE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL Ir1PACT STATEMENT
FOR
SOUTH PORT DEVELOPMENT
AT CONKLING POINT
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
OCTOBER 5, 1986
PREPARED BY
FREDERICK F. ~!EYER ASSOC IA TES
MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
.
.
INTRODUCTION
One of the primary purposes of planning is to ensure
that the private use of land by an individual does not
have a negative impact on the surrounding community. As
such, it seeks to preserve a balance between constitut-
ionally protected individual rights and the unassailable
needs of the human community. A community adopts a Master
Plan and a Zoning Code for two basic reasons. . One is to
protect the collective vested interests of the individual
property owners within the community. The other is to
guide the prospective land developer as to the community's
land use policies. In this way, a spectrum of land uses
can be accomodated within the geographi~ area of the
community to the benefit of everyone living and working
within it. It was with this theme in mind that the Final
Environmental Impact Statement was reviewed.
The Impact Statement, by law, must address the nature
and degree of negative impacts a proposed land use will have.
on the surrounding environment. And, it must explore ways
to mitigate those impacts, including mOdifying the original
proposal and examinE alternative land uses altogether. The
FEIS fails to adequately address many planning issues. It
also fails to give any serious thought to land uses or
combinations thereof that might be better suited to the area
in question. The following critique discusses specific
items which either were not discussed, or were discussed on
a superficial level.
Page One
IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING LAND USES
The subject of this Impact Statement is a zone
change from the "C Light Industrial" district to the "M-l
General Multiple Residence" district. The land use immed-
iately surrounding the subject parcel is both zoned for
and developed with single family residential structures.
The proposed use is, in fact, a significant intensifi-
cation and addition to the existing marina and boat
yard use. The Final Environmental Impact Statement,
however, does not address the impact this proposed change
of zone will have on the existing zoning pattern in the
immediate area. At the least, the Final Environmental
Impact Statement should have discussed this zone change
in terms of the Town's stated policy of preserving the
identity and individual character of' each hamlet within
the Town by concentrating the business uses within
established areas. This proposal will introduce an
intensive business use into an established residential
neighborhood.
VISUAL IMPACTS
'The Final Envirorh-:Jental Impact Statement does not
specify the impacts the proposed uses would have on the
visual resources of the area. The quality of a vista is
a highly subjective determination. Nevertheless, certain
Pa~e T'..;o
.
.
.
generalizations can be drawn. For instance, it is a well
known fact that the price of a bUilding lot with a water
view is significantly higher than that of one without one.
One can also go so far as to argue that certain waterfront
properties command higher prices than other similar water-
front properties because of the view afforded by the site.
By using real estate market values as an indicator of the
quality of the visual resources in this area the FEIS
should have analyzed the potential impact of the proposed
project on the quality of the visual resources of the commun-
ity that is situated across the cove from the Young's site
and has an unobstructed view of the buildings and docks. The
proposed change of zone will result in a significant change
in this view. Considerable alteration of the site from its
present state is noted, but mitigation is not dealt with
at all in terms of buffers, barriers or simply the reduc~
tion in intensity on the land and water uses of the project.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The only available access to the subject site is over
private property. The current marina and boat yard and
several nearby residences have access ober this private
property by easement. It is important to note here that
this right-of-way is only 16 feet wide. Good planning
stipulates that road access to land uses be by way of
improved public roads. The Highway Law requires that a
residential right-of-way be 50 feet, and a minimum of 30
feet of paving is typical. The proposed series of
Pace ':'hree
uses are commercial, warranting increased standards.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not
discuss the impact of increased traffic on a 16 foot
wide road by service vehicles, private cars and other
vehicles towing boat trailers. Who will legally be
responsible for the maintenance and insurance? What
legal arrangements will be necessary in order to bring
in public water lines over right-of-way easements. Are
the easements in perpetuity? If they are not, and
permission for access is withdrawn at some time, this
proposed project and the Town will be faced with some
serious problems.
OTHER IMPACTS
The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not
mention the flood zone of this site. Nor does it address
the possible damage that might occur because of flooding
to the stormwater retention structures or the denitrif-
ication system.
In actuality, neither the current zone, or the
proposed zone, are suitable zones given the surrounding
land use, the lack of public ri~ht-of-way access, the
flood hazard, the poor soils and the lack of sufficient
visual buffer.
Good planning requires that land be zoned for useS
"') ~ .-., --
.
.
that are both compatible with the neighboring land zones
and suited to the particular set of environmental constr-
aints that may characterize the area. Using this criteria,
neither the existing zone nor the proposed zone are
suitable zones for the property in question. The Town in
its review of its proposed Master Plan for the area,
should give serious thought to the imcompatibility of the
site for both the current and proposed zones." It should
not let its determination be unduly influenced by the
existing use, nor by its previous use and non-conforming
status. The environmental constraints in this area
insofar as sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, are
severe enough to warrant a serious discussion into
alternative land uses of the site; uses that are more
compatible with the existing residential development, yet
which would also grant the property investor a return on
his investment.
ALTERNATIVE USES
The Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to
consider other uses or combinations of uses to which the
property could be put which would also have less of an
environmental impact. The Statement refers to the economic
impossibility of obtaining a fair return on investment in
the marina without the income of additional uses on the site
Pa~e Five
such as the motel and the restaurant. This is no reason
for declining to explore other options. The use of land
does not have to return the highest dollar, only that a
reasonable return is possible. The applicant would have
us brlieve that the poposed use if the only possible,
economically feasible, project that anyone could place
on this property. Multiple dwellings, just one permitted
use within the proposed zone has not been explored as an
alternative viable land use. It is also interesting to
note that regardless of the proposed zone, e.g. "M-l
General Multiple Residence" or "Marine Business", the
proposed project will have to be granted one, or more,
special exceptions. Further, it has not been proven
that there should be more than one use on the site or
whether it can physically or mathematically accomodate
them. The requested "m-l" district does not permit by
right, or special exception, a restaurant. Also, there
are no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance whereby the
Appeals Board is given a set of criteria by which to
determine whether the special exception or permit use
should, or may, be permitted. Consequently, the consider-
ation of this change of zone must take into account all
of the proposed uses, special exceptions and potential
amendments to the zoning code. The PElS does not discuss
this at all.
D~~~ 0~~
.
.
CONCLUSION
.
.
This private commercial facility, as currently
conceived, will overpower the cove and surrounding land
area. A balance of so-called mixed land uses already
exists here and one appears to be in harmony with the
other.The dominant element within the cove is resident-
ial, with a marina that does not have the appearance of
being the slick intensive entrepreneural operation it
has come to be at other locations in Western Suffolk.
And, there is no reason, or justification, for it 'to
be such here. What exists is the result of non-conform-
ing uses, and to expand and intensify the marina plus
adding new uses, woulq do more harm in the long term to
the community. The theory that one use naturally
begets another, or bigger is better, is out of the
question at this specific location.
If the proposal by the applicant is executed,
commercialism will win out and dominate both the cove's
water surface as ~Iell as the upland, to the detriment
of the existing majority land use - residential. Further-
more, if the Town's current proposal in their draft Master
Plan is carried out, the same end result will occur.
Perhaps the applicant has been misled by the latitude
of an over-~enerous zoning district as currently proposed
by the Town. Even so, it is poor planning to believe
that the subject could ever support such an ambitious
..-,.... -'" ('" - '.--
.
three-use project, or that the Town ever had that kind
of intensification in mind.
It would be sad indeed if, in the future, the past,
and things we value from it, will not be retained, or
even recognized. This ambitious, ill conceived plan,
would deprive us of a pristine and charming cove and
turn it into an insensi ti ve commerc1."l1"' proj ect. In
planning, some consideration must be given to personal
gratification be it in the land form, architecture or
daily activities.
.
.
RESUME
FREDERICK F. MEYER
MUNICIPAL PlANNER
EDUCATION
Adelphi University -- B.A.
New York University -- M.A. (Public Administration-City Planning)
Cplumbia Society of Real Estate Appraisers-Adelphi University
-- Accreditation Certificate
Benjamin W. Goldberg School of Real Estate -- Certificate
EXPERIENCE
Nassau County Planning Ccmmission,
City Plan Carmission, New Britain,
Town of Smithtown, New York
New York
Connecticut
- Senior Planner
- Director of Planning
- Director of Planning
EXPERI' TESTIMJNY
Babylon Plill1I1ing Board
Babylon Ta.m Board
Brookhaven Planning Board
Brookhaven Town Board
Ccmmissioners of Estimate - Suffolk County
Connecticut Circuit Court
Connecticut Legislature, Road and Bridges Committee
Farmingdale Board of Trustees
Farmingdale Board. of Zoning Appeals
Hempstead Ta.m Board
Huntington Board of Zoning Appeals
Huntington Planning Board
Huntington Ta.m Board
Islip Planning Board
Islip Town Board
Nassau County District Court
Nassau County Supreme Court
New York State Court of Claims
North Hempstead Town Board
Old I'lestbury Planning Board
Oyster Bay Town Board
Plainville, Connecticut Board of Zoning Appeals
Shelter Island Board of Zoning Appeals
Shelter Island Town Board
Southarrvton Board of Zoning Appeals
Southold Planning Board
Southold Ta.m Board
Suffolk County District Court
Suffolk County Supreme Court
\';estharrvton Beach Zoning Board of Appeals
WL~dsor Locks, Connecticut Board of Zoning Appeals
ORGANIZATIONS
American Planning Association
Land Use Crnmittee Member - Suffolk County Extension
ColUJT1bia Society of Real Estate Appraisers
. New York Planning Federation
Urban Land Institute
Regional Vice President - New York State Association of
Conservation Crnmissions
LECI'URES
BOCES - Guides for the Teaching of Conservation Education
Cocperative Extension
New York State Bar Association - Municipal Law Section
New York State Association of Conservation Crnmissions
Benjamin W. Goldberg Sch=l of Real Estate
arHER
Licensed
Lake Ronkonkara Transportation Crnmittee
- Town of Smithtown Conservation Advisory Council
- Long Island Sound Sttdy Group of the
New England River Basins Ccmnission
Real Estate Broker - New York State
P.emI:er
Chairman
l-'.erDber
450 Noyac Road
Sag Harbor, N.Y. 11963
October 7, 1986
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Gentlemen.
Please find the enclosed remarks concerning the FElS for
Southport Development's proposal on Sage Road and Southold
Bay as submitted to you by Henderson and Bodwell. We trust
you will find it helpful in the resolution of this matter.
It would appear that that the major impacts to the environ-
ment that would result should this project be implemented
can not be mitigated and that the project should be denied.
Sincerely
~~y 7
Environmental Consultant
(For The Objectors)
cc. Chris Kelley, Esq.
.
.
COMMENTS ON THE FEIS FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL, SAGE ROAD AND SOUTHOLD BAY, SOUTHOLD, NY
By: Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant,
For the Objectors
Introduction
The impacts to result from the Southport Development
proposal if implemented are manifold and large. The FEIS by
Henderson and Bodwell has examined the environmental impacts,
to wit, site drainage, septic disposal and treatment, wetland
disturbance, marine resources, surface water quality, basis
hydrography, and groundwater resources. We find that the
major impacts cannot be mitigated effectively as suggested by
the FEIS for the same reasons we have previously given. The
FEIS has focused our concerns and we provide these additional
comments germane to it in support of our original position,
that the implementation of the Southport Development project
would do great harm to the environment.
Drainage
The on-site drainage system proposed by Henderson and
Bodwell will not mitigate the previously discussed storm
water drainage problems and in some cases will exacerbate
impacts as briefly outlined below:
A. Runoff will not be contained on site but will be
discharged into the cove by way of the proposed collector and
transport system, in effect creating an underground river to
the cove.
B. The system will dewater the perched groundwater
system on the site. Inasmuch as this system is hydraulically
connected to the perched water associated with the large
wetland area upgradient and adjacent to it, and inasmuch as
it is responding to hydraulic gradients found off site, the
plan by Henderson and Bodwell will serve to dramatically
impact this gradient and dewater the wetlands as a result,
C. While the proposed system may trap sediments there
is little guarantee that it will trap all of the microbial
contaminants available in the runoff, nor will it filter oue
diSSOlved chemicals serving as contaminants. On the
contrary, it will collect them and shunt them directly into
the cove along with the runoff.
D. The opportunity tor mixing between the leach water
and runotf systems is heightened because of the interpositIon
of pass-through subsurface waterways and we would expect Ll)
see leachate entrained in the storm water runoff over time.
This effect will be, in part, a function of the potential
difference in head between the leaching area and the
subsurface water transport system. This head is a function
of the amount or effluent pumped and leached which during
the summer season will be on the order ot 20,000 gallons per
day. Entrainment of leachate contaminants would be
ca tas trophic.
-2-
.
.
Sewage Treatment And Disposal
The proposed denitrification system will not mitigate
the potential grave impacts presented by sewage disposal over
a conventional system with the exception, perhaps, of
nitrogenous wastes. The denitrification system would be
extremely ill-advised here for the reasons outlined below.
A. The design flow has been arbitrarily adjusted down
such that the denitrification standard is imposed, where
sewage removal to an off-site facility for treatment is
strongly recommended. This adjustment is extremely risky
where you have thousands of gallons of effluent daily
discharging immediately proximate to marine surface waters.
There is no question that the risk would be substantially
reduced by removing the effluent to the Greenport Sewer
District system. A package treatment plan that would give
tertiary treatment is the next best available alternative,
but even it would be risky here.
B. Much has been said about nitrogen removel. It 1s a
point of fact that those few denitrification systems now
installed in Suffolk County have rarely worked up to
standards and that the residual nitrates remaining after
treatment still represent an inordinately high concentration
with respect to back-ground levels. Denite systems were
des igned to protect dr inking wa ter from ni trogen load ing
-3-
where density vis-a-vis local zoning was already in place and
where connection to sewage treatment plants was not possible.
They were not intended to mitigate situations that would be
created by new zoning, i.e., by increasing density by a
change of zoning in an area where it is not apropos without:
hook-up to outside sewage treatment and disposal. Small
increases of nitrates above background levels can bring about:
damaging algal blooms.
C. Denite systems are not designed to remove the
majority of other chemicals that would be generated by the
proposed project and incorporated in the effluent. These
will load into the waters down-gradient of the leaching
field.
D. The situation of the leach field will not only
threaten the waters of the cove, and lagoon and bay, bue disc,
the wetlands, particuarly because of the mounding ot the
leachate such that hydraulic gradient will be eftected in all
directions.
E. The pump-up step incorpora ted in the des ign pres en ts
additional risks as it increases the risk of overflow due to
system failure. Again, a spill here because of mechanical
failure or loss of containment will be catastrophic.
-4-
.
.
Wetlands
The wetlands now existing on the property along the cove
are important for a variety of reasons. They stabilize a
shoreland which is intrinsically unstable (as was nicely
indicated in the flushing study conducted on the site this
summer and incorporated into the FEIS). To disturbe or
remove any of this wetland fringe is an act of
destabilization. If the wetlands are disturbed, the inlet
may begin to migrate, the shore will be more erosible. It is
not an easy matter to establish new wetlands, especially
where the substrate, as in this case, is not favorable and
where steep gradients exist. Reestablishing wetlands once
removed on this site will be extremely difficult given the
high intensity use proposed for the site with boat swash
adding to wind-borne wave and turbulence activity,
particularly in the summer season when boating activity peaks
and the southwesterlies travel over a fetch of 2 miles to hit
the cove.
Marine Resources
It is fairly well established that the cove's shellfish
and finfish resources are substantial. Implementing any or
all of the components of the proposed plan will certainly
-5-
be to their detriment. The impacts on them have not at aL"
been mitigated in the FEIS plan. The tidal waters of the
cove feed the waters of Southold Bay, as is commonly the case
where small estuaries serve larger ones. And so it is seen
that impacts to the cove's biota will be translated to the
benthic and off-bottom community life outside of the limits
of the cove. Instead of a positive multiplier effect, as
would prevail where a healthy smaller estuary is feeding a
la rger one, there will be a reducer effec t. The streng th or
Southold Bay and the Peconics as a recreational and
commercial fishery is tied to the collective feeding effects
of its feeder estuaries.
Surface Water Quality
Again, the project will stand to impact the surface
water quality significantly over present levels. It will '1C
this in three ways.
A. The proposed collector and transport system will
transfer microbes and chemical contaminants from the site to
the cove (and bay).
B. The effluent-leachate from the proposed subsurface
waste water disposal system will not only contain noxious
chemicals in damaging concentrations but will entrain
microbes as well.
-6-
.
.
C. The boat wastes that would be generated by the
marina will also serve to contaminate the waters and have
them decertified with respect to shellfish harvesting. Such
is the case in and about coastal marinas nationwide. At
present it is near impossible to mitigate against such
wastes, notwithstanding the provision of pump-out facilities
and disbarment from slips. Marine sanitary devices would
flush out into the cove a variety of chemical contaminants in
addition to microbial ones.
Cove Hydrography
A. The study done with the drogues is interesting. It
suggests that the cove will have little pockets of backwater
(which are concentration points for chemicals and microbes)
no matter what we do to the cove. The elaborate, expanded
dockwork proposed will further create backwater conditions.
B. Flushing is a double-edged sword. If there are
bacterial and viral constituents dumping into the cove
they must be diluted more rapidly with more flushing but they
will be carried outside of the inlet area faster where their
background concentrations would build up over present levels,
such that bacterial standards are exceeded leadinp to the
o
creation (and decertification) of a secondary zone of bad
-7-
wa ter. The" feeder" influence of the cove is trans la ted
outs ide of the cove, in this case, in a deleterious manner.
Groundwater Resources
Despite the assurances that the Greenport Water District
(by a 3 to 2 vote) can provide the proposed project with
potable water it is a well-known fact on Long Island, and in
New York State, that the condition of the groundwater
resources in Southold Town is not good. There are limits to
the volume of the aquifer, and water quality within it IS a
mounting problem. Greenport's public wells are problematic
with respect to producing high quality water in adequate
amounts. We suggest that it would be highly irresponsible to
continue to mete out public water here and there, especialLy
where the denisty for its consumption is not already on
paper, until a water plan for all of Southold Town's
groundwater resources is worked out. This project would be
es pecia lly was teful of the North Fork's water res erves Ln
that it is 100% consumptive. None of the water is returned
to the water budget. Uses which are 100% consumptive aCi.! the
worst in terms of allocating a limited resource, which the
North Fork's sole source aquifer represents. The project
would use up the groundwater at the worst time, during the
summer peak when recharge of precipitation is minimal and
-8-
.
.
areawide use is maximal.
Conclusion
We have pointed out the lack of mitigation, despite
assertions to the contrary by the developer and his
consultants, provided in the FEIS and proceedings to date
with respect to the Southport proposal. The Board should
keep in mind that the anticipated impacts will manifest
themselves in terms of several levels of magnitude referred
to background conditions as they exist now. The project is
simply too large and too complex for the land area it is
proposed for in this situation, immediately proximate to
productive marine waters and surrounded on all sides by
aquatic systems. The FEIS has failed to provide us with real
mitigaion and meaningful alternatives and for that reason it
does not provide a valid basis for supporting the project,
thus, the proposal should be denied.
-9-
.
.
COMMENTS ON THE FEIS FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL, SAGE ROAD AND SOUTHOLD BAY, SOUTHOLD, NY
By: Frank Flynn, Intervenor
October 8, 1986
On page 2-69, in the Addendum to the Land Use Company's
DEIS an attempt is made to provide economic justification for
the proposed expanded marina as well as the proposed motel
and restaurant. This whole approach, as I shall demonstrate,
is questionable.
In the first place the analysis purports to prove the
present use to be unprofitable and, presumably confiscatory.
Hr. Bowman makes a pathetic attempt to do so. He ignores the
present operation in favor of a hypothetical one which he
proceeds to burden with $830,000 in connjectural debt. He
also ignores deliberately other sources of existing revenues.
At any rate, he comes up with a net income of $40,000. By
some unique reasoning process he concludes that the $40,000
represents a 5% return on debt. He has actually done a crude
version of a Property Residual. The $40,000 actually
represents a return to equity. Under such conditions the
value of the property consists of the sum of the mortgage and
equity positions. Capitalizing the $40,000 return to equity
at the high rate employed by Bowman, 12.5%, indicates an
investment as claimed. Even this value is low because of the
manipulations of the analyst.
I shall prove in the following that the present
operation is a profitable one employing, as Bowman agrees
substantially all of the combined upland and underwater site,
First, I should like to make some general observations on
marina operations particularly one, as Bowman says "state of
the art", or full service marinas.
The present trend in marina operations, particularly
where slips are in short supply, as maintained by Bowman, is
for annual contracts; those which provide for summer and
winter storage as well as for all repairs, maintenance and
fuel purchases to be at the marina. These last items are
among the mos t profitable as pec ts of ma rina opera tions but
Bowman chose to ignore them.
Marina operations vary with the type of boat
accommodated. For analytical purposes we shall accept
Bowman's average boat size of a 37' x 14.5 'beam. It shouLd
be apparent tha t thes e boa ts are no toys. To cIa im tha t you
won't winter store or repair, paint and repair them is
ridiculous. You have to, if you are in the marina bus iness.
Besides, it represents profitable off-season work. The
owne rs of th is type of boa t Cd n 't ta ke th em home and pel r' k
them in their garages. They are oversize for road transporL.
which would also be prohibitively expensive, particularly
twice
-2-
,
.
.
a year, in the spring and fall. To maintain that they could,
or would go elsewhere for services is equally ridiculous
involving two hauls and two launches in both spring and fall
with attendant expenses for the boat owner. Such necessary
services as winterization of engines and bottom washing
cannot be done properly except at the site.
Let us review the annual cycle starting at this time of
the year with the fall haul. When a boat is hauled its
bottom must be high pressure washed to remove the accumulated
scum. This is done at dockside to prevent bringing the
odiferous material into the storage area where it would also
attract insects. Obviously, putting this noxious material
back into the water, particularly in a concentrated area, is
a prime source of pollution. It is at this time that engines
and auxiliaries are usually winterized. Basically this
process consists of pumping anti-freeze through the engines
and out the exhausts. Engines are fogged-out by spraying
anti-rust conditioners through the running engines to the
accompaniment of large clouds of smoke. Typically, oil is
changed at this time and fuel tanks are topped off and a
preservative solution added to the fuel. These processes
contaminate both ground and water and present some risk of
fire.
-3-
>
The boat is then hauled to the storage area by
travel-lift. Here it is blocked for storage using either
concrete blocks and lumber or cradles. All of this material
must be stored in the yard in the off season. Boats arc
often covered by tarpulins or shrink-wrap at this time and
this represents an additional source of income for the
marina.
Now is an appropriate time to discuss the area requ~red
for marina operations. It is commonly accepted that
automotive parking is calculated based on 350 sq. ft. per
car. This is approximately three and one-times the actllilL
area occupied by the car itself and allows for driveways etc.
The same principle obtains for boat storage, further
complicated by the need to provide meneuvering room for the
travel-lift, transport trailers and space to perform the
offseason repair and maintenance.
The actual ground area occupied by the typical boat 1S
approximately 530 sq. ft. To provide the necessary space
around the boat and provide maneuvering area a minimum space
per boat of approximately 1100 sq. ft. is required. It
should also be noted that while the required area
calculations below are based on 91 boats, in an area such ~s
Southold there are many owners of large boats who have ChUl[
own summer dockage but require winter storage, repairs 111(1
-4-
.
.
.
maintenance. Such a potential source of additional revenue
would not be overlooked by astute management. Additional
vehicular parking for boat owners who come to inspect, load
and unload their boats is also a requirement. Ninety-one
boats at 1,100 sq. ft. each equals 100,000 sq. ft., or 2.3
acres at a minimum. A full service marina would also require
space for inside storage and repairs, space for boat sales
and brokerage, storage of yard equipment and supplies, a boat
store, an office and the necessary additional vehicular
parking results in a requirement for a minimum net upland
area for marina operations of about 4 acres. Note tha t the
required setback areas account for at least two acres. The
existing pool and tennis club with four courts occupies over
2 acres. In essence, there is no additional space for motel
or restaurant use, particularly since Henderson and Bodwell's
area calculations of upland area for drainage purposes totals
7.02 acres. (Pages 4-10,4-11).
To continue a brief description of marina operations,
bottoms are painted in the spring with poisonous paints with
attendant spills and disposal problems. Boats are launchecd
and engines tuned in the water. These tune-ups result in
pumping large quantities of anti-freeze into the water along
with fogging oil. The whole process is accompanied by noise
and clouds of heavy fumes and smoke.
-5-
With this background in mind, it is possible to make a
far more persuasive estimate of the value of the present
marina property using many of Bowman's figures.
Property Residual Approach to Value
Projected Gross Income
Storage 91 boats @ $3,300
(2,200 + 1,000)
Winterization, tune-up,
bottom and misc. painting
etc. @ $SOO per boat
Fuel Sales, repairs, short
hauls; summer land storage
marine supplies, etc.,
pool and tennis income.
$300,000
4S,OOO
,
Potential Gross Income
Les s Expens e
2S,OOO
$370,000
22S,OOO
14S,OOO
$1 ,160,000
Projected Net Income
$14S,000 capitalized $ 12.S%
On this more realistic basis,
the indicated property
value, as is, is $1,600,000.
Using what I consider a more appropriate rate of 11% tor
capitalization purposes, the indicated value is $1,320,000.
This figure is close to Zehner's inflated asking price for
the Marina of approximately $1 ,SOO,OOO and a far cry from
Bowman's "negative value".
-6-
.
.
.
Bowman concedes the winter storage of 60% of the summer
boats, or 68 boats. He then procedes to the ridiculous
assumption that this would result in the loss of 110 parking
spaces. 110 parking spaces equals 38,500 sq. ft. or 566 sq.
ft. per boat. This is almost precisely the net sq. ft. area
of the average boat. No provision is made for lift-cut area,
maneuvering area, parking area, or storage and work areas as
previously demonstrated. The area required for boat storage
alone is 74,800 sq. ft., or 214 parking places. This leaves
24 parking places for the motel, restaurant and bar without
consideration of the other area needed for marina operations.
Should they store 113 boats they would be eliminating 355
parking places or 117 more than they had planned for the
entire combined land use. Where is the additional space for
the Sanitary Disposal System (page 4-19)?
Some other general comments. The confidence expressed
in the pump-out system is naive. Large boat owners simply do
not wait and maneuver to use the pump out.
Has it occurred to anyone that boats of even the average
beam proposed in the EIS cannot pass in the channel the
authorized width of which is 20 feet?
,
.
.
.;.
J
.
.
----
.
GREENPORT WATER SUPPLY
The Suffolk County Department of Health Sel
vices has recommended that we notify our cor
sumers that the concentration of nitrates in Ot
water supply has reached and sometimes exceec
the limit set Tor drinking water.
The water should not be used for infant inge
tion without consulting your physician. Nitra
concentrations in excess of the limits will n'
affect older children or adults.
Processed water is available at the Power Plar
Moore's Lane, Greenport, between the hou'
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Should you have any questions on this matt'
please contact the office of the Suffolk County [
partment of Health Services, 348-2891.
r---
/lTn'!<-N->-1~ of. - YDIINrr3: ~hlvA Lell~ll 6F S~...,rr. z"/, 19Ft.
,;h,"nlP~q F'F1$ C. ,..,...<nJrs
THE NEW YOk1{
TiMES, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1986
~_._---~--_..__.- ---- -------
f
, '
~.~~~-,.
RRIIi~~r ,:,~~ ~.r,~ ,~'"
ExJlf
"
"
m
~
.'
~;.;;.
'II:':"
The New York Tlmei/Barton Sll~rm.n
Henry C. Weismann on his property in Southold, L.I. Across cove Is site where a motel Is going to be built.
I
Developers and Residents Battling Over North Fork's Style of Life
Long lslan<1 Soun<1 ~npo"
Port Jefferson . ~ <-v
- ::r--
~ _____ MontauK
-----
~SouthamPton
not careful, we'll turn into another west Stegmann, a former New York City
end." resident and retired union official, who
!'and town otf1cials, and producing a I; The battle has been made even now lives in Mattituck near where a
i seemingly endless parade of disputes isharper by the scarcity of open land on developer from New York City wants
about water rights, zoning variances, . Long Island. For most North Fork resl~ to build a 95-uoit condominium com~
easements and other land~use issues. 'dents, there is nowhere else to go. plex.
"We're self-dtgesting," said Paul Many are retired and for them, the "The developer is here for one rea-
<ito1Itenburgh, a Southald councilman North Fark is their last stand. sun - to grease his pockets," Mr. Sieg~
: from Cutchogue. "We're eating up all Their view was captured recently at mann shouted to a room packed with
~~ood things we have here. If we're ,8 stormy public meeting by Edward people, most of them elderly. "We're
"_ ~ ~ here to enjoy the way this end of the is-
, ;;:;~~: ),: :_~~d ~!!3;!"3 Ih" '.",'ey .".. 'NHnt
it to stay
Richard Carr. the develuper wnu
v. ants to build the condominiums near
1\11'. Siegmann, said some development
I~ needed on the North Fork. "Let's as-
.Jme there was a moratorium on build-
mg," said Mr. Carr. "That wouldn't
solve the problem. It would hurt the
price of housing and cause the erosion
of the tax base."
"Just to maintain the status quo is
not the answer," he continued. "The
real answer is to have judicious,
competent and qualified development
'projects that meet all the tests set
! down by various government agen-
, ~,ies."
-Levels Upon Levels'
Mr. Carr, who owns a home and a
vineyard on the North Fork, said many
residents on the North Fork are wary
of change. "They're afraid of develop-
ment because of what it's done to other
areas on Long Island - and that's a le-
I gitimate concern," he said. "But be-
cause of development abuses, there are
now levels upon levels upon levels of
. i rev1ew and approval a project must go
I through to assure that irreparable
damage 1s not done to an area."
Land~use and development issues
have come to dominate the local politi-
cal agenda on the North Fork. Last
month, the Greenport Village Board
banned condominium development on
Its waterfront. The town of Southold,
which covers most of the North Fork,
has rezoned much of its land to exclude
tract housing, preserved more than 300
acres of farmland by purchasing the
development r1ghts, and is now revis-
ing a H~year~old master plan that will
put new, tougher restrictions on com-
mercial development.
Continued From Page Bl
THURSDAY, SE TEMBER 18, 1986
Copyrtaht" 1_ The New ork Thnes
On North Fork,
Battle to Direct
A Style of Life
By THOMAS J. KNUDSON
r
SpecIal 10 The New York Timl's
GREENPORT, L.I., Sept. 17 - When Henry C.
Weismann retired from his law practice in Smith-
town in 1978, he decided he had had enough of subur-
ban life. "I'm a country boy and I wanted to be in the
country," he said.
So he moved 45 miles east to a remote, sun~span-
gled cove near the tip of Long Island's rustic North
Fork far from the traffic and the commercial clutter
of suburban Long Island.
But not far enough. Today, a business concern
plans to build a motel and restaurant and to expand fi
marina on the quiet cove where Mr. Weismann lives.
"It's beautiful here," Mr. Weismann said. "But more
business activity will absolutely destroy this lovely
cove."
What is happening on Mr. Weismann's cove is typi-
cal of the pressures now emerging on the North Fork,
a rustic sliver of land 90 miles east of Manhattan that
tapers into the Atlantic Ocean, and the last mainly
rural and agricultural area on Long Island.
In recent years, as land prices in the Hamptons
have soared, as more people have joined the hunt for
waterfront property and as desirable land on central
Long Island has become scarce, more and more
developers have turned their attention to the North
Fork and its chestnut-brown farm fields and pebbly
beaches. The impact of that development, which
began about five years ago and has increased stead-
Ily, is becoming visible. Fields once shaggy with
potato plants are now checkered with condominiums.
Beaches once speckled with wild birds are now
crowded with luxury homes. "FOR SALE" signs
abound, lining roads, hanging from fence posts, oak
trees and barn doors.
The activity has not exactly been welcome. Much
of it has brought conflict to this peninsula, pitting
developers against preservation-minded residents
SUFFOLK
Rlverhead
"It's very disheartening to see our
vistas d1sappear, to see all these
houses going up along the roads," said
Alex Hargrave, who owns a 90-acre
vineyard and winery in Cutchogue.
"You need to have some growth,
sure," said Frank Murphy, supervisor
of Southold. "But you need a balance.
And remember, development costs
money. It increases school, fire, police
and town budgets."
lfl~1 wet:'k, T!'j(' Sm1thnlrl '!'()wn B!)ud
received a consultant's report recom-
mending that It fight off residential and
commercial development by declaring
a 9,OOO-acre "agricultural district," by
limiting farms to a minimum of 25
acres in the district and by encourag-
ing the establishment of more vine-
yards and wineries.
"The rural character of the area is
slipping away," said the consultant,
Michael Zweig, an economist at the
State University of New York, In his re-
port. "Yet it is exactly a rural charac~
ter that will attract, and then be sus-
tained by, grape growing for premium
wineries. ..
Ground Water a Key f'actor
Another key element sure to shape
the North Fork is ground water, which
1s not overly abundant and is often
tainted with agricultural chemtcals,
saltwater and other contaminants. To
buUd homes on the North Fork, a devel-
oper must be able to supply them with
potable water.
Many North Fork residents were
upset when the Southold Town Board
voted 4 to 2in July to give the authority
for developing new water systems to
the Suffolk County Water Authority, a
quasi-governmental organization that
p1pes water to one mlllion people,
mostly in western Suffolk County.
Mr. Murphy said the water author-
ity's presence in the town of Southold
- where all water is now privately sup-
plied, except In Greenport - is an invi.
tation to more development.
"We can't accommodate the worle
out here," Mr. Stoutenburgh said.
"We've got something unique and
lovely and how long it will last w1l1 de-
pend on how strongly we are able to
stand up and say no."
--
Atlantic Ocean
Mlle~
5 10 1&
o
The N~w York Times/Sept. 18, Illllll
The North Fork is Long lsland's last predominantly rural area.
Continued on Page 82
,
,
tk,UNG'S BOATYARD & MARINA
P. O. BOX 250, SAGE BLVD.
GREENPORT, N. Y. 11944
.
;Sf? 2~ 1986
-
CDP'1 p"1Z..~
f'~IVIIV~ 81J~
'14. .nvNFTT' D-e.LD""tKI.J~'
-~
September 2~, lqA6
~O: The members of the Southold Town BOArd
R~: Sout~port FEIS and September lA, 1086 N.Y. Times article attAched.
Note 1 Mr. Weissman's concerns:
The brickyard operation formerly at Youn~'s Boatyard
and Marina be~an in 1890. The present basin was entirely
upland and was created by that operation. A MarinA with
its commercial zonin~ has existed here since 1950. You
cannot build a home next to an airport and complain legally
about the airplanes. Mr. Weissman moved here in 1978,
Mr. Flynn several years after thRt. Most people find boats
a scenic extension of their water view. Please note the
distance in the left backgro~nd of Youn~'s Marina boat
docka~e and inlet from Mr. Weissman whose home is 100ft.
in front of him.
Note 2 Modern Business Considerations and Controls:
A small, limited, fRmily operated boatyard and marina,
such as Young's Marina, is finsncially impos~ible in today's
world (especially when all ( ~hildren must leave the area
for college and jobs) due to modern rAY coste of insurance,
labor, government paperwork, permits, ,otc. Modern day
marinas must expand to financially utilize their water rights-
dockage, and fully utilize their land rights to support the
dockage of boats - motels, pool And tennis, restRurant, boat
sales, boat storage and repairs, and other ancillAry boat
support. Enclosed is a copy of FEIS appendix D, figure I,
showing Young's Marina present inefficient dock layout and
unused commercial bayfront property.
Ongoinv controls by various government Agencies of
most husinesi, and marinas in particular, assure ~ompliance
.;..
#~1:
with current day concerns. Some of the permits and inspections
Suffolk County)
Gasoline dispenser inspection (yearly)
Rope dispenser inspection (yearly)
Cesspool permits (as determined by Southold Township)
Inlet 10 year maintenance permit
Off-premises sign permit (yearly)
Dept. of Transportation water pollution controls (as required:
Note 3 Mr. Zwei~'s report to the Town Board:
Boating and associated marinas represent a large tourist
impact to the Town of Southold. Over 2,000 official marina
slips exist in this township and the tax base and hoater and
boater guest spending over the boating season is substantial.
Marinas, by comparison to vinyards, existed long before
vinyards, and it is very doubtful if one-time vinya~d and
winery visitors number 2000 families and spend over an
extimated $1,000 per family {$2,nOO,noo not including guests)
as boaters do over an entire summer with local restaurants
and merchants. Vinyards are very acceptable for land preser-
vation; marinas provide scenic environments and a large
economic base. ~ noint is that marinas and marina expansion
within existing boundaries should hp encouraged as a past
and present primary tourist industry in our Township.
consir'eration.
Vpry truly yours,
d~ ,J-. 7/ ({~
How8rrl H. zeJh:;, P.E.
(ownp,.)
.
.
~,
. :
~
.t c..,
~ ~
.~ ~
~-.j
.~~
~ ...
. i
t~
~ ~
.~i
.~~
-l
.!
.
.
.
.
')...
~
~
~
..
~
~
....
~
,
(
"
~
...
.
"
.5
lI)
l-
ll)
::::i
c(
U
W
Q.
lI)
..J
~
Z
W
:I
z
o
a:
>
z
W
..J
c(
a:
l-
ll)
W
a:
a:
W
I-
>0-
lD
'tI
.
...
.
a.
.
...
Q.
""
o ~
~
.::::::---.::::
II
I
I
I
I
I
Q
>
..J
lD
W
Cl
c(
lI)
.
-
-/~ -f.;-
W ~ '"
Wz .. 'll
to-:; ~""
c( \I. f"
tffi !> ~
)( I- _'II
o a: 'IQ
a:W
.., Q. Q. f;l
... Q. 0 Ioi
~c(a:..
~ Q.~
~
Q)
-
en
-
(J
Q)
-
o
...
a..
.
....
Q)
...
:l
Cl
-
U.
0 -
0 .
N .
-
+1
b
0
0 N
II
\-
'~ j
~~~ 0
0
.{ N
~
-
- %
.
.
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR
STEPHEN 8. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHeA. III
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
'l'WOMEY. LATHAM. SHEA & KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
HIVEHHE.AD. .L\;}':W YOH!{ 1 HlOI
516-727"2180
,. .; ';1'1 \
,! j 'C-' 11\
\l;' !,'~ .:~') ; ; ! i
\1: ,:..JI\
iI, ....-11
., 9 NORTH MAIN STREET.,".__.",,\ I
: 'EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 1~,9,37, :jL~
\ .._' .516-324:1200.____
AMY S, TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. llCCIONE
'AlSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
July 11, 1986
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
1'l1'rg.
7"
~.....,.~-~
--- ......-.-=-. --- -~
~::?,~';~")
RE: Southport Development Corp./
Proposed Master plan
Mg. D"te
FilelA::-- /,/.3
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
I write in response to a report in the June 12,
1986, Long Island Traveler Watchman entitled "Town
Readies for Master Plan Adoption". According to that
article, the Board is preparing to set a hearing date on
the adoption of the new Master Plan and has been advised
by the Town Planner, David Emilita, to issue a "Negative
Declaration" signifying that the proposed Master plan
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Although I have since visited Town Hall and have been
advised by the Town Clerk that a hearing date has not
been set yet nor has the SEQRA process been commenced
because the Master Plan is still being reviewed and
revised by the Board, I take this opportunity to submit
these comments to the Board for its review.
As you are aware, this firm represents Henry
Wiesmann and Frank Flynn who reside on Sage Cove
opposite the proposed Southport Development. Under the
proposed Master Plan (according to the proposed zoning
map revised as of May 27, 1986) the Southport property
would be located in a Marine Recreation District. Such
a zoning proposal for this site appears to have been
tailor-made to permit the Southport project. That
project neither conforms to the current zoning of this
site nor would it conform to the change of zone that the
applicant requests to General Multiple Residence
District. The reason that the proposal to designate
this parcel Marine Recreation seems tailor-made to the
Southport project is that such zoning would permit the
. .
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page two
applicant to maintain his marina, add a motel or hotel,
and by special exception, construct a restaurant on the
premises, all on an environmentally sensitive cove, the
majority of the land surrounding which is currently
zoned low-density residential.
It is our position that the adoption of any master
plan that includes a change of zone on the subject
property to permit the combined uses of the Marine
Resort District, (hotel or motel, marina and restaurant)
may have a significant impact on the environment and,
thus, requires the preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. For the Board to find otherwise would
contradict the Board's previous findings contained in
its July 16, 1985, and April 22, 1986, positive
declarations that an almost identical zone change on the
subject property to General Multiple Residence district
may have a significant effect on the environment. A
copy of those two notices containing the findings of the
Board are annexed hereto.
In addition to the fact that issuing a Negative
Declaration on the adoption of the Town's Master Plan
would be in contradiction of the Town's stated position
that rezoning of the subject property, as proposed,
would have a significant effect on the environment, the
SEQRA regulations themselves classify the proposed
Master plan as a Type I action. Type I actions are
those that will more likely than not require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 6
N.Y.C.R.R. ~617.12(B)(1) lists as a Type I action:
The adoption of a municipality's land use
plan or zoning regulations or the adoption
by any agency of a comprehensive resource
management plan.
Also on the Type I list, at 6 N.Y.R.C.R.
%17.12(B)(2) are:
The following changes in the allowable uses
within any zoning district, affecting 25 or
more acres of the district;
(i) authorizing industrial or commercial uses
within a residential or agricultural
district;
. .
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page three
Based on these regulations, the townwide placement
of Marine Recreation Districts in areas currently zoned
for residential use qualifies as a Type I action and
requires the preparation of a DEIS.
The Master Plan as proposed would zone other inland
water ways to marine recreation as well, although they
are currently zoned low-density residential. It is
submitted that the increased potential for more intense
development on these other creeks together with Sage
Cove certainly justifies the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement on the whole of the
Master Plan. Specifically, Wickham Creek in Cutchogue,
James Creek in Mattituck and Town Creek in Southold,
all currently abutt A Residential land uses and have
areas on their borders proposed for Marine Recreation
under the proposed code. Likewise, the subject property
on Sage Cove is currently surrounded by residentially
zoned property and in the proposed zoning code would be
surrounded by low-density residential property in the
R80 and R40 districts.
Further justification for the requirement of a DEIS
on the proposed Master Plan because of the location of
Marine Recreational use on sensitive inland waterways
can be found in the comments of the Town's own
consultants, Raymond, Parish and Pine contained in a
letter dated January 27, 1986, to Supervisor Murphy from
Stewart Turner of that firm. At p. 2 of said letter
RPPW states:
The marine recreation district has been
designed to permit and encourage water-rela-
ted recreation uses on waterfront properties
that are located on inland waterways or creeks.
In the RPPW draft, transient or resort hotels
were listed as special excpetion uses and only
water-related or necessary public uses were
listed as pemitted uses. This was done to
encourage the desired uses. It would not
prohibit the special exception uses but would
require greater justification and allow the
Town to try to achieve better use of the very
limited non-residential waterfront areas.
. .
Supervisor Murphy and Members
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page four
In the revised draft Marine Recreation District,
transient or resort hotels had been listed as a
permitted use instead of a special exception use
and requirements were omitted: (1) that
such use be a secondary or accessory use to a
water-related use and (2) that one-half of the
proposed marina or docking spaces or an amount
equal to one-half of the existing marina spaces be
retained in public use . . .
Most areas designated for Marine Recreation
use have been located on creeks and inland
waterways of the Town where higher densities
would often be inadvisable and great care
would be essential if hotels and motel were
permitted without special exception review.
Thus, we think that it is desirable from
planning and environmental perspectives to
require special-exception approval for hotel
proposals in order to add another step in the
review process. ...
It is probable that hotels or motels would be
more suitable in the marine business district
than in the marine recreation district, since
hotels are a commercial use and the MB
district, a basically commercial zone, is
mapped in areas that is generally not located
on inland waterways so that greater "flushing
action" would be available.
Thus, even the Town's own consultants have reached
the conclusion that the Marine Recreation District, with
its high density hotel/motel use are not appropriate for
inland waterways with poor tidal flushing such as the
subject property, and that it is not advisable from an
environmental or planning point of view to allow such
uses in these areas.
The potential negative environmental impacts of the
new zoning on marine areas is emphasized in the comments
on the plan by Orville Terry, associate research
professor at the Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY
at Stony Brook. In his letter to the Board dated
February 14, 1986, it is stated:
supervisor4ltrPhy and
of the Town Board
July 11, 1986
Page five
Nembers
.
My own special interest, as might be expected, is
in the Town's marine waters and their preservation
in present condition. I think the plan may be weak
on this point.
Commercial development of the Sound shore is
probably acceptable because of its good
flushing characteristics. Commercial
development or dense housing development along
the creeks and bays is very different,
something I think professional planners may
fail to recognize. These are not, in general,
actively flushed and also they support shellfish
populations (which the Sound shore mostly does
not). Loss of those shellfish, through habitat
damage or bacterial pollution, is a very serious
danger, one which I don't think the Plan has
adequately recognized.
Given the comments the Board has received, the fact
that the proposed Master Plan and zoning code qualifies
as a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and given the Board's past position
on rezoning of the Southport property, it is encumbent
upon the Town Board to require the preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed
Master Plan before proceeding with the processing and
adoption of same.
S'(;f:lU#A
Christop~er Kelley
CK/bb
enc.
cc: Henry Weismann
Frank Flynn
.
, 7
/Q
~?-z;~~
THOMAS A. TWOMEY. JR.
STEPHEN 8. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHE"A, III
CHRISTOPHER 0 KELLEY
TWOMEY, LATHA:\f, SHEA & KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
p, 0_ BOX 398
RIVERI-H-<;AD, :'>i1~W YOR.I-\: lInO]
r',i)Y tron ~."
,;". I i .tllt ;pUR
"!rr''!!-f'"nl'l'\}
.. "JA! ,~; i
"r.C~I'!j"l)
,\,...... r.;.
516-727-2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. 11937
516-324-1200
AMY B. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. LlCCIONE
APR 29',986
'r ".... Cl..w ';outhold
"ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
April 28, 1986
Southold Town
Southold Town
Main Road
Southold, NY
Board
Hall
11971
RE: Southport Development
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter received
from James H. Redman of the S~ate Department of
Environmental Conservation contradicting pages 35 and 36
of the DEIS in the above referenced matter. I trust
that you will take this into consideration when reaching
your conclusions on the DEIS.
SiterZI , -
'1'
" /, / . /
/}{/ / /".f
c', \;'~!) (/ L--..'
Ch""ooph , ,olle,
CDK/bb
cc: F. Flynn
H. Weismann
\.",\
--7 'f
CA,\",
. ." ,,,
, c
C) c""'~'I,
New York State Department 01 Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Shellfisheries
Bldg. #40, SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11794
~
~
t lenr" ~c,. ,^,
Co'rr rn ;C',~..'i)~',t
Apri 1 22, 1986
Christopher Kelley, Esq.
Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 398
Riverhead, New York 11901
Dear tk. Kelley:
In reply to your letter of April 11, 1986, I have discussed page 35
and 36 of the enclosure with Charles deQuillfeldt of this agency. Neither
Mr. deQuillfeldt nor I have any recollection of making such statements.
Our current information on the area including bacteriological water
quality data are inadequate for making decisions on the sanitary quality
of the area for shellfish harvesting.
Sincerely,
~. Redman
~iarine Resources Speci2'iist
JHR/dg
Enc.
cc: Mr. Charles deQuillfeldt
Mr. Larry Penny
Town Board, Town of Southold
.
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
JlIIllTII T TERRY
Tov,,'N ClFR I\.
REGISTRAR OF' VITAL STATISTICS
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Dated: April 22, 1986
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and
Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold
Town Board, as lead agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, and public hearing on same, does hereby determine that the
action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant
effect on the environment and has requested the filing of a Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
Description of Action
Petition of Southport Development for a change of zone from "C" Light
Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No.
269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25)
Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, con-
sisting of 12.461 acres.
Further information may be obtained by contacting Judith T. Terry,
Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Copies to: Southold Town Planning BoardV'
Southold Town Building Department
Board of Town Trustees
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
N. Y. S. Department of State
Szepatowski Associates Inc.
Southport Development
~ 4 ~ c3- l( 8'-"
.
.
JUDlTII T TERRY
To\\'\' C1TRI\.
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box I 179
Southold. New York I 1971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, 1986:
WHEREAS, South port Development has heretofore filed a petition with the Town
Clerk, pursuant to Article X of Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold,
for a change of zone on certain property at Greenport, in the Town of Southold,
from "C" Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District. and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and
Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, the Town Board, as lead agency,
determined that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did file and circulate such determination as required by
the aforementioned law, rules and code, and
WHEREAS, South port Development did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to
be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with
said law, rules and code, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development at the
Southold Town Hall on February 4, 1986, at which time all interested persons were
given an opportunity to speak, and said hearing was recessed to February 25, 1986
and again to April 8, 1986 to provide an opportunity for comment on the Addendum
to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby determine
that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant. South port Develop-
ment, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final
Environmental Impact Statement. all in accordance with said law, rules and code,
within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, and incorporating therein
the comments of the Town Planner, Szepatowski Associates Inc., comments made at
the public hearing, and comments made during the public comment period.
~~~~J---
Judith T. Terry {/
Southold Town Clerk
April 23, 1986
... ".'
""
.
".:-- ,/ .,' ./ r~ /l
/~:r7?~T ~~" ~
New York State Department 01 Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Shellfisheries
Bl dg. #40, SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11794
REaiVEO
i\PR 2 41986
J;h~~-L ~
~uL&~~~ ~
J(3-.Z,.,~
~&:V
Henry G. Williams
Commissioner
April 22, 19B6
'T ,,"'.. CI~'" ~"uthold
Christopher Kelley, Esq.
Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 398
Riverhead, New York 11901
Dear Mr. Kelley:
In reply to your letter of April 11, 1986, I have discussed page 35
and 36 of the enclosure with Charles deQuillfeldt of this agency. Neither
Mr. deQuillfeldt nor I have any recollection of making such statements.
Our current information on the area including bacteriological water
quality data are inadequate for making decisions on the sanitary quality
of the area for shellfish harvesting.
Sincerely,
d H. Redman
Marine Resources Specialist III
JHR/dg
Enc.
cc: Mr. Charles deQuillfeldt
Mr. Larry Penny
Town Board, Town of Southold
O\'jA 'i -4-~
TWO:\IEY. LATHA:\l. SHEA & KELLEY
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR
STEPHEN B LATHAM
JOHN F, SHFA. III
CHRISTOPHER 0 KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
POBOX398
RI\'EI~HE.\f). :'\T:'W Y()I~h 11HOl
5\6-727-2180
9 NORTH MA;h ?_"qE~
EAST HAMPTt')"I ~J' j'9?'
5163241r
AMY B. TURNER
LAWRENCE 1vI. STORM"
MAUREEN T. L1CCIONE
"ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
April 11, 1986
James Redman
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Building 40 - SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11794
RE: Southport Development DEIS
Dear Mr. Redman:
This firm represents Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn
intervenors in the SEQRA proceedings on the DEIS for the
above-referenced project. Pursuant to our phone
conversation of this date, I enclose a copy of pages 3S
and 36 of the Addendum to the DEIS for Southport
Development. As we discussed, the project which the
DEIS analyizes is an expansion of an existing marina
adding the uses of an 82-unit motel, a 125-seat
restaurant and boatyard facility on a small embayment
located on the Conkling Point peninsula in Southold.
The embayment, just west of the Village of Greenport,
empties into Shelter Island Sound. Enclosed is a copy
of the tax map indicating the location of the subject
site (by a red "X") which consists of approximately 12.2
acres, 3.7 of which are underwater.
One of the issues focused on in the comments on the
DEIS and its addendum is the capacity of this emoayment
to flush itself. The embayment or cove is extremely
shallow in spots and given the influx of effluent and
runoff from the project, we believe that it will be
significantly impacted by the project. We believe such
an impact will be exacerbated by the cove's limited
tidal flushing.
In response to this concern, the applicant has
quoted you on page 35 of the DEIS addendum that there is
a "high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is
found within the project vicinity". Larry penny, our
consultant believes that you were quoted out of context
and prooaoly meant that there was a high degree of tidal
flushing in Shelter Island Sound, on the bayside of the
. .
.
.
James Redman
April 11, 1986
Page two
project, rather than on the cove side of the project.
This would seem only logical in that the whole of the
basin has as its only entrance a 20-foot wide channel at
its southeastern end.
Please review your statements as enclosed, and
contact me to confirm that these statements were taken
out of context.
As I asked you on the phone, if your statements
were taken out of context, I request that you clarify
your statements and indicate with a short letter to the
Town Board of the Town of Southold, the lead agency in
this matter, that they were taken out of context and not
intended to indicate that there was extensive tidal
flushing within the subject embayment or cove.
Sincerely,
~~;Yb,eY
CDK/bb
encs.
cc: H. We ismann
F. Flynn
L. Penny
r
I
{
CC:':':.:::::~:"T
::0.
17
f
.
J
1
?~.::?C-:':.3::::
f
I
,
,
s~c=-=:;:.:
SL'??:..C::.: ':,::"~=?S
"L-:;2.8=''':''"";"'.~:::.ed I_::.;e:--.c~' 0::Se:::-\-2:-.
he:j :'0 cc::c~~ce S2~~5~2C:'O~~'
i~ C~2Se ==8:'::~~~\' ~~ ~~~ 5__
s"'::-=:~e~e:-.":_
~,
:-;22'::5
2':
'::>::21:'-=::'"""2::-::'':;
:-:-.2..::e
::1
~ ~ ~ -
~----
_::.:. :::::-:-2;-::'
.. ~- ~
- - - - -,
_c..::::'::::_
:;-2:-2':--::-:-:'-=:-.:
~
--~-~::::.--::O
'-.. ---
(:':-:.." S=:=:C;
. .
==52:::.-..-.:=.:.::....:;:-.2
:':-.2
S :)....: ':.~-_:; _.::
:::J~::::':::'
::::"'"
":::: as~:-:
0-'
--'- -'"
':::'-'~_. ~-
:::-:.e':
---~ ~-
----- --
3~:::.-e~~ ~- ~~e~_::~~e=ie5
='2
-,.....-..c--~:::.- - -- ~
----.. - -- - - -~ ----
?e=~~~, :'~2.=::""::-:2 ?ess~:::.-=es ~;ec::....__
-<::--.2
....'c....:~.::
2
~ -.=:. - - -
.,
=2
=--_::::-~-
-~" --
-'-' ---~
s:-:'=:__=_______-:;
.
'. .
" '-
'-
- - --'- - -
::'.-:2:' .::....3
- -.
-----------
"
:.:.-~~,.--..::::._c.._
-_._~--------
- ---
~ .--
~-_..__..
.._ 2)
. - - ~ -. Y'
,'.0. '-_ '::::_
- --- _..- - .
. .
,'",,- .
'- '-;:;. -'-
..c:.
-' c:::. '-..:c, .'
"
s
",
..:.;.-
,
i-
. .'
.
.
r
?oi:-:t
(Sf:21ter
T ~, ;::>..r: \
~:.::> --.........! .
~h.:s
cc:-:s~~.:-ictiO:-l.
r
::>"-"""'C>-;> ,- tr.e e:'::;b 2.:-:'c flooc 0: tica 1 't:aters
........ ~'.., -.. ~~
i::.to aT::: out of t:-:.e s:-.:b j ect basin , tht:.s
~~eve~c~ng t~2 Co~=e:1t~a~io~ O~ ~ollu~a~t3
s~c~ 2S colifo~~ 2~~ ~it~3~es
.:-'3 :-:0
f
c':-::e::-3ti0:1 or
.j...'-,c.,
'-.. ~
e:-::s ti~;
Ch2:1.:1el
e::.tra:-'.ce
~s ~~tici~2tesl t~is ti~~
::-3.::'2 0:
ti::al
e:':c~a~g2 ~~ill co~ti:;.~e a~te~ p~Oj2C~ co~-
- -, ~~
~_..;.v..
2:-'.;:::
',l i 12.
2.3 s:...:..:-e
S 2. tis -= 2. C::'::J "::::"
"..:2 :'2:::
... --" ~
."''':'' _o..J.....
:':-:2
'::::25::"':;.
!
ltEQIVED
APR 2 2 1986
town Clertc Soutl1old
. 0 .1 I
"l\"~\
L ~ ~,- PJ' ,
.1 -7 c. '-~
~ - . /~
. .
Southold Town Baymen's Assn. Inc.
POST OFFICE BOX 523
GREENPORT, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11944
Southold Town TrustGes
SOLltholci '1'o..-:n Hall
SOLlthold, N.Y. 11971
April 15, 1936
~~-
/).NV\ _ ~~A~~~-
rh CI ~~
tJ~ ""'" ~ S".-Jt~~..
Y1J~~
Be: The SOLlthport ?roject
Dear TrLlstees,
'rhe DEIS reDort sllbnittedJY the SOLlth'Jort project
people, claims tha)c no :J2.:~;nificnnt .~h',.;lJfl:..~h -~-),j.,::j~a-:';5.ons
'.-:ere found to :;;-:1 ~t in ='a:~;e I Z cJ'eek. "'0 tltl~ C0:-1tT'J.:'''1Y, it
is a well known fact that Saee's is a DrodLlctive clam~ing
creek. Considerin::: its s,nall size, this creek ShOLlld
be considered a very productive natural hahitat.
~e wo'ld point out that any marina 'Jroject on the
South0ort scale will create a ne0ativ~effect on sanitary
certification for shellfishin: in ~ace's creek. There
vlIll also o)e a potentially ne:3ative effect ore the adja-
cent ?econic ,:ay system. ESDecially e:i'fec~ed would be
-the scallop producinG beds running weotward frOM the en-
tranc8 of Sa,je I s creek to Eeixedon and Town ;:ar'oor. This
ent~re coastline on Southold Bay has always been a pro-
ductive area.
:leg~f~l~'U~
peler ~enczel nresident
.,;l1kx. ~
'~eve ~atson secretary
cc: Southold Town Council
:Jew ':'ork State DeDartnent of .~tate
Coastal ~ana3a~ent Pr03r~m
;
,
.
.
.
Sf] I
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
,,,..~.., ___,~ ~_ cu_.. c.,. -..-'.'T"_" 0'_ n__...........,
SA~
,. , ." .-.----- --~-
APR I 6 !935
RE: Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development
I
t"
i :.' ::,;,:;-':'~"~':;-;'~:;~'::;'~;' .: J i
l 1 v , .., ,.', _ '.- ,. "h...:J j
,--.......--.... ""-
TO: Southold Town Board
FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc.
DATE: April 15, 1986
We have reviewed the Addendum to the above mentioned DEIS and
find missing elements in the material. Principal missing
elements are:
Documentation from Fire Department
Drainage plans
Additional borings
Water quality analysis
Our specific comments are as follows:
~omment 1 and Response
The site encompassing Southport Development will be redesignated
"Marine-Recreational" on the proposed zoning map per the
Southold Planning Board. The present chanqe-oi-zone request to
General Multiple Residence District (with a yet to happen
application for a use variance for a restaurant) must be dealt
with in the present SEaR process whose outcome will guide the
Southold Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals in making their
decision. Compliance with a proposed Zoning Ordinance does not
preclude the possiblity of adverse impacts of a specific
proposed project. To clarify the record, that is the purpose of
the present SEQR review.
Cor.Uilent 3 and Response
Exhibit E is a satisfactory response.
Comment 4 and ResDonse
The response does not eliminate the possibility of "boatyard"
operations or winter storage. It is recommended that any
out-oi-water repairs/maintenance take place totally within an
enclosed structure. Positive means to properly dispose of
sanded paint, motor, and hydraulic oils should be a part of any
approval. Simple storage can take place out-of-doors within a
designated area thac will not encroach upon the parking
requirements of on-going uses. Looking at the site plan,
~ hO\leVer, ,the only possible ~ocation for boat repairs, and \linter
~storage ~s soutn and east 01: the motel location. TnlS of course
~\.'o . , , " ., ,. . '"'' . n
"'''''''rr';'-'n"rr"",~ '-"'~-'"rn".'~ .,/ ',,",,-" _", "".,. "',J
L;J .'<d ,,",e. I::>'>.:". '. - ,;' '~"" ,___..,_" _\., ~'L_J ~.~J__
,
.,
.
.
would be a terrible "eye sore" to the clientele that they had a
"bay view" from their room. Another problem with this location
for Winter storage and/or boat repairs is that this area was
designated in original DEIS for a "transition and buffer area"
to the so-called "dune establishment and enhancement" program.
Comment 5 and Response
The actual flow generated may exceed 15,000 gpd since the
calculations equal 15,000 gpd exactly at the outset. Site plan
approval should not be granted prior to approval by SCDHS of the
plans for denitrification.
Comment 6 and Response
The response is sufficient except that no documentation from the
Fire Department having jurisdiction is supplied. This is
particularly critical since access sufficient to suit the Fire
Department will ultimately be required. The needs of the
Department should be known now.
Comment 7 and Response
The response is unsatisfactory.
widened to Town specifications.
granted until such an agreement
appropriate Town authorities.
Sage Boulevard will have to be
No project approvals should be
is in place and approved by the
Comment 8 and Response
The response contradicts the response to Comment 4. In addition
it is stated in Comment 4's response that the existing travel
lift will remain. This as the applicant is well aware, from the
spill on December 16, 1985, poses as a definite threat of a
hazardous liquid leak, namely hydraulic fluid. So in stating
that "the said proposal will eliminate the potential hazards
currently existing for industrial/commercial pollution caused by
compounds utilitzed in the current as well as the permitted uses
of the site", is absolutely false. One must assume boat repair
may occur. (See Comment 4)
In the spring a boat normally requires some sort of maintenance,
be it stripping and painting the hull or at least cleaning it.
what will be done with these wastes and where will it occur?
SA~
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMEN1AL CONSULfANT5
S)]~
SAI
.
.
Comment 9 and Response
After reviewing Dredge Spoil Analysis for Southport Development
the main concern is why was the actual lab analysis report not
included in the report. Having Land Use Co relay Eco Test
Laboratories, Inc. results of the dredge spoil on Land Use Co.
stationery is highly unusual. Verification of this information
is impossible unless a copy of the test analysis report is
included. The method of sampling is not indicated in any of the
reports submitted nor is the method of packing or time period of
travel of the samples from the site to the lab for volatile
organics this is essential for detection.
Another comment that was not addressed in response is where will
dredge material be shipped if unsuitable for upland grading and
wetlands creation. It appears this might be the case since in
the core sample analysis indicated a 6" - 1 ft. sand layer atop
of grey clay. Clay is not suitable for site grading since
surface runoff is a problem nor is clay suitable for wetlands
creation for obvious reasons.
Comment 10 and Response
Questions are raised as to the condition of the existing
undergound tank. It should be tested and approved by the SCDUS
prior to site plan approval. Likewise the proposed pumpout
system shall have been approved prior to site plan approval.
Comment 11 and Response
Until a full review of drainage is completed, the SEQR questions
on impact to groundYlater and the Bay will remain unanswered. No
approvals should be granted nor should a final determination
until the drainage questions are satisfactorily addressed.
Co~ment 12 and Response
The amount of area available for the motel appears to be
overstated; number of employees understated; no loading spaces
are shown; the side yard dimension is incorrect and several
other site plan details are unfulfilled. These, however, are
site plan questions and do not in themselves represent
significant environmental questions.
Comment 13 and Response
satisfactory
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAl CONSULTANTS
~Ii"..
,-yj J
.
.
Comment 14 and Response
The location of the borings are not sufficient to reveal whether
subsurface conditions can support a parking lot, or more
importantly a motel/restaurant complex. At least five more are
needed. See test boring plan for proposed locations.
Comment 15 and Response
See Comment 14.
Comment 16 and Response
Satisfactory
Comment 17 and Response
In the response it is stated that "it is highly unlikely that
water quality withing this area would ever be found
'unsatisfactory' for shell fishing purposes" because of the
"high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within
the project vicinity." This is quoted from a hearsay telephone
conversation with Mr. James Redman, Marine Resourses Specialist
III (l-JYSDEC). A follow up letter should have been obtained and
put in the exhibits section to verify the subject had been
researched thoroughly by said specialist. A look at the area
map in DEIS shows the location of property to be west of the two
points which cause these "constriction" velocities and increase
flushing. Furthermore, the marina property is not on Southold
Bay, it is on an adjoining cove which further reduces the
flushing capabilities. The more removed from the main water
body a marina is the slower the flushing capability of the
cove. Just because flushing studies have been done on Southold
Bay this does not mean they necessarily pertain to Sage cove.
Comment 18 and Response
The applicants lack of concern for toxics existing in bay bottom
sediments is unwarranted. The results found in the shellfish
survey of minimal vegetation and wildlife and black silt, many
times indicates anoxic (lack of oxygen) conditions being caused
by some sort of toxic in the environment. Hydrocarbons such as
gasoline, will cause this situation to Occur. The lead agency
should consider this when the analysis is presented because if a
marina of Young's present size is stressing the marine
environment a marina increased by 1/3 the size could be that
much more detrimental to the environment.
The validity of the shellfish survey was questioned \.lhen only 3
hardclams (mercenaria, mercenaria) were found in an area where
on two occasions our staff has seen Southold Baymen clam@ing in
these Haters.
SfJI
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA.NTS
SfJ~
.
-l_
z>i i
'$~ \.
~\\
~-
_0
(
.(
I
, i
"
,
MARINA
~--
--+- ~
- I '
:, ;An
" ~
if'.
. . ""-,,
L
'~
";~',~.:,
>..~",,,.
;'.<
, .
":"') .
/;1
.----
( ..'
"--
..,........
..
,~~'2S
(y~j.J,.;:_ - ", ,
c, ~.~~\:G
J. /
J ,
".
I.AOOOO
,
A
n
SITE allTA:
..n.".. 10'. "". """....
""........."""'... Il'l..
.'11............ ,......
_IMQOIUA:
....,......,._.."""c......, ,,,_.
...",,,......ftn' __
f\<,......"...._ ,._
""'..._ l~
.....,,""'...... ,.-
101.._.-w,.._
rIL~FR BFD AREA
LEACH I Nr. !-TeA
C SF.PTIC TANK ARFA
". ;-
G//~~",:; ,{
(~\ -I' 0'1
-"'-1 ..J.J. '>-~ (
" ---', , '>,1:'.
.' ',' , / - ',/ ;'
"",,' ,( -'-." "
...' , ..
/: .....' /', ,........... '<
'\" ' ,
MOTU
".
]
0\
(
"
I
c'
'l
--------------- .
---- -
---
IIOUTHOU) BAY
m
SOUTHl"OI'T ftOORT 1MlJ"-""
OfI.!I!MflOfIlT.JIEW 'I'lJftI(
6,",C:;O.
OQ
-]~
~--,: '
clQSTINu. ~1NG6 qJ: ;
~t..: :
~EJ
AoornONt\L ~tNb \ r-~
t..0L411~6
) ~.
w
//
-
(/ /'
"-- /" ~~~~ e...,.'
LOCATION5
11:'51 ~E. --
SA~
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CO:'>iSULTANTS
~Jl~
'\..-V-J j
------
.-..~
ct>
.
.
Comment 19 and Response
Satisfactory
Comment 20 and Response
Is the Zehner permit transferrable to nell owners? Are any of
the permits shown in Exhibits F-l and F-2 pertinent at all to
this project? There is no indication on any plan to this
linkage, Was the work under Army Permit # 10484 ever
accomplished? If not, there can be no maintenance of a project
never completed.
Comment 23 and Response
Due to previous unanswered questions, this entire Section cannot
be evaluated with regard to groundwater, surface water,
vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, landuse, (fIT Coastal Zone
compliance) and community services (fire protection)
Comment 24 and Response
The responses (mitigation measures) are not located on the site
plan as to Ilhere specifically they are needed and located.
Specifically 81, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
Comr~ent 25 and Response
A zero runoff system should become a condition of any rezoning.
Comment 26 and Response.
The location of phragmites removal and nell planting is not
sholln. HOIl Ilill phragmites then be controlled after nell
plantings are made to prevent re-invasion? How are natural
wetland species such as ones listed for revegetation to be
transplanted and from where. Wetland creation is contraversial
with regards to success rates. Has this been researched?
Comment 27 and Response
See response 8 26.
~Owment 28 wnd Response
Satisfactory.
Cornment 29 and Response
Incomplete. This does not respond to unavoidable adverse
impacts.
Co~~ent 30 and ReSDonse
~j Satisfactory.
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULI'INIS
~/1~
~;-jJ
SA~
'.
.
.
Conclusion and Recommendation
We would recommend that a final environmental impact statement
be compiled by the applicant as one document, addressing our
comments, comments made at the public hearing and during the
public comment period.
Before determining whether the final EIS is complete to review,
I would strongly urge the Town Board to allow us to examine the
document. This particular project is complicated and the
documentation to date has not been satisfactory. I do not wish
to see the Town rendering a decision on incomplete information.
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMEN1AL CONSLJLTAN1S
Sf]]
fit---
I~
]
South~d Town Baymen's .!sn. lne.
Xl CJ::! ~
POST OFFICE BOX 523
GREENPORT, lONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11944
A,):,'il 15, 1936
Southold Town Trtlstees
Sou.tho16 r.ro':;n Hall
Southold, IT.Y. 11971
Re: The SOllthport :?roject
Dear Trustees,
The DETS renort sl\1:nitted')y the Southport nroject
people, claims that no si3nificant shellfish no~ulations
'::erc found to 8;:i.st in S.a..::;e r S cP.::;::::-:. To :~b: co::Lt~~ar;;"', it
is a well kno\'Tn fact that Sage's is a nroductive cla11l'ling
creek. Considerin':~ its snaIl size, this creek ShOLlld
be considered a very prodLlctive natural habitat.
~e wo~ld noint out that anv ~arina nrolect on the
South00rt scale will create a neGative effect on sanitary
certification for shellfishin3 in Sase's cree~. There
w~ll also be a potentially negative effect on the adja-
cent :'econic ,Jay system. ESDecially effected wDuld be
the scallo!) producing beds rllnning westward from the en-
trance of Sage's creek to Eeixedon and Town Harbor. This
entire coastline on Southold2ay has always '::leen a 9ro-
ductive area.
R
~~~e
steve ~atson
Dresident
secretary
cc: Southold Town Council
Ciew ":'ork Stc.to Depart~ent of ,StaGe
Coastal TlanaGe.'?lent Prosram
---'r!. '
L.....- __ ,
,o~~~~.
CAe
~'JP7-/}?~
J:~ 6~/J1~J~
.
.
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN 8. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. HI
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
TWOMEY. LATHAM. SHEA & KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
RIVERf.n~.AD. l'\igW YOHK lInOl
RECEIVED
516-727-2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. 11937
516-324-1200
AMY 8. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. UCCIONE
APR 1 6 1986
1',,_ c...... <;....n""'d
"ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND'lORmA April 11,1986
Southold Town Board
Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Southport Development Corp.
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board
It has come to my attention that some confusion has
been created regarding the applicability of the remarks
of Larry Enoch, Environmental Analyst of the New York
State Department of State regarding the above project.
A copy of his comments on the dredge spoil analysis for
Southport Development is annexed. In speaking with Mr.
Enoch this day, he confirmed that all of his comments in
that letter are still pertinent with only one exception.
His only change is his withdrawal of the statement in
No. 4 of his letter that the test methods used by the
applicant were not sensitive enough to measure such
small values. He confirmed to me that in all other
respects, his letter still stands as valid.
In addition, although I was not present, I am
advised that applicant's attorney argued again at the
hearing on the Addendum that a project specific EIS is
not necessary and that a more general or generic EIS
can be utilized since this application involves a zone
change. This argument is totally fallacious given the
fact that from the very initiation of the zone change
application, the applicant has had a very specific
project in mind. The position advocated by the
applicant would result in this Board acting illegally in
contravention of SEQRA and its implementing regulations.
I, therefore, reiterate my arguments as set forth in my
letter to the Board dated February 21, 1986, a copy of
which is annexed. To wit:
crt:> I--\. ~ - \ \c - 8<.0
Southold Town Board
April 11, 1986
Page two
1. Neither the zoning proposed for this site in
the new master plan nor the zone in the existing Zoning
Code that the applicant requests a change to would allow
the uses as proposed by the applicant. Thus, the master
plan data available does not suffice to serve in lieu of
a project specific EIS.
2. The SEQRA Handbook at page B-45 only suggests
the use of a generic impact statement on a zone change
when an applicant has "no specific project planned".
Clearly there is a specific project planned by the
applicant and a project specific EIS is required.
3. The quality and quantity of data in the EIS and
Addendum is seriously flawed as pointed out by
intervenors' witnesses Larry Penny, Frederick Reuter, by
the New York State Department of State and the Town's
own Conservation Advisory Counsel and would be
insufficient whether it was a generic or site specific
EIS.
By urging that the Board avoid project specific
intensive environmental review at this early stage in
the development of the proposal, when the zoning changes
necessary for the proposal's viability are reviewed, the
applicant urges that the Board disregard the mandate and
purpose of SEQRA "to incorporate the consideration of
environmental factors into the existing planning, review
and decision-making processes of State, regional and
local government agencies at the earliest possible
time." [Emphasis added.] 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 56l7.l(c)
We respectfully urge the Board to consistently and
purposefully carry out its mandate pursuant to SEQRA.
To do so, it must require a full project specific
environmental review at this time and require the
applicant to provide critical additional information,
and corrections to the faulty analysis in its work to
date, to cure the serious defects in the DEIS and
Addendum.
Sincerely,
/lj' ;1//
(,/{It //;) ~
ChrHfcopher Kelley
CDK/bb
encs.
cc: H. Weismann
F. Flynn
.- ~",-.
,.
~
!-
"r\\"o::\u;:y. L__\.TIL\)'I. SHEA & I~ELLE'l_~
"7"'-':J~.l.5 ..l., "."-'';::.\.1:;:-, ~~
ATTOR~EYS AT LAW
33 '.vEST SECOND STRE;;:':T
PO. BOX 398
t"'I'.-El~llE_\\). .'d:':W ynl~h ll~)(ll
S-:-':::Pri:;:."-i '3 l~;h'\'~.~
JO"-lN F. SH:O:A. 111
C~.q;S7C?HER 0 .'(:oLL:=.:y
5;6-727<2130
9 .'lOR7:-l MAIN S-.==<'EE:7
EAST HA.'-lPTON. N '( '~3J-;-
S16-324-12CO
A"IY 9. TURNER
L,\,.....RENCE...., 5T;lRM.
t.P,UREEN T. UCC:O"l::
"A;..S.:J ~:)"""',;::D;:'>j C;C"~E::-;-!C:'-,"'"
.... '.:: ;:-:..0.~~::"
febcuacy 21, 1086
~>.2 ~O','J:1 3oar2
~'J~' o~ Southold
\L:: i:1 ?o3d
:]:..: t:--. .) ll:, \1': 1 ~ 3 -: .:.
~~: SOJ~h9()~t Dev2lo9~2~t
~r-3E': ':.:t1\..i:-~nn02n.t3.1 I:npa,:t S::'3:'271e~::'
223.~ S.J.):?':.:'lisor ~'lJr;:>~I and ~le!7lbecs of the D\J3.cd:
I ~=it2 this letter on beha~~ of Henry Weis~ann and
~~3:1< ?lynn. in ~es9onse to certain sta::'e~ents mace by
tje a~torney f:LC Jos2LJh Fishett i, ,Jr., i!l hi.s letter t~
".,-.,,, 0: F~~c'J3.~Y 4, 1986.
A= page 2, co~nsel states that S()~thport has maje
a~Dlication to the Board "merely for a change of zone
t~at a!lticipat2s the change in use ~roposed for this
sice by the recently completed town master plan'1. He
~ancluj~s t~at given the contents oE t~e proposed mast2~
?13~ the need for the a~?licant to develop extens~ve
.~at3 in the EIS process is elimi-~3t2d. This conclu3io~
~~ ~~8ng foe sal/eral reas~~s.
?:.r3t, t:1.-2 r:ld3tec plan proposal to da::e and as
~~es~nt2d at the H3~let Meeting would ha~e the pCOp:)38:~
Southport sitq designated for marine business use. This
use does n'Jt include motels or hotels as either a
?ec"itted use oc a special exception use. This Nas
pointed Dub by the Tow~'s planning consultant in his
coo~ent3 on the DEIS. T~e request for a change to the
zone of general multiple residence in the curr2nt zonin;
co~~ would perllit boats, hotels and ~otels '.>lith special
e:(Ce9~ion, but would not pec:nit restaurants. Thus, the
9c~90s~~ neithec conEor~s to the requirements of a zone
-'.
Th2 To:,..;n Goard
T~~ln of Sauth.)lJ
':'-~ ':J C d a C 'J 2 1, .1 9 ,) .s
?(:.J'~ T-..;,::)
2xi3ting in t;1~
ze):1inrJ foe th2
CU~c2nt zonin] cOrje n,Jr the pcoposed
site under the new 8dster plan.
Tn-=c<:E,]C2, contc3cy t-.) CC)uiL3<)1's opirlio:-:., it. CAnnot
ja slij that the 83S~2r )l3n data s~pp.)~ts tills pco~osa~
'~1.L';11.n3ti:1g the ;;2',::j t'Jc t:12 d~)i}l~':::J.:lt_ tG pr;)-/id-~ sue!,:
~.{t2n3ive d~ta in the D~:3.
Second, 2'..72:1 ass:...J.:'J. i :'1-:-;, a:-JL:e r1.:::0, t ~0 c. t:te 5,::')1.2 th~-:;o:-~
~C:J)~S31 ~~as p2rmi~t2d bj t~~~ exis~in] Jr )rOp:JS2J
z-.Jnl.:l.:J, t'1.8 a;?:)lic3.nt IJO':":!.\J n~)t bs c::lie'''2d fr,'Ji:1
jl--'.sti=,!i.:1J the ~)C~'J~:::'osa.L :rcJ,l 3:1 ~';i,....ic.~;.i:-~2:;:'3.}. 3.1'[<"1
::-:J'--:)'i~:: ):)_~:1':. 0:: V:"S'.) _.. '-"',-"" DS=:S. O:-'."C c'_-)nSI_~l~_'1,lt..:;!
- .~ .~. '-'>
?2'_:-:?~ ~~~ ~~~~l 2-2~~!, '13'l'~ C~~2:'J~2~ th~~
-:.; -2 ~ .~ 3.:-:'::; :3 '2 :: i. 'J '~::3 ':::":": .';3 -j.:' -::1 t;I,-:; ;-E: ~::=:, C T'
3 ~ -:: :. .-::; '-:':3, t :13. t t:) :: ~ :... J .,; '--- _ : ;::: ~):-:= IS t.) ) C .J : ':: ,:;
f~~ct
~--)_ _ ~ '::;:)':i.,--:-t-2:1ts
t,)
::>.2
~~~IS ':..;i'::I)I!t t_:3~,:~;
t'1!::",.JL~J'::.
f"2',.;citt-2::
.--:."...;
.3....;,j-;::':::tl.':t_111'./ :-:::/:....:;..::.=, """;:;l_:ld S;J:)-:;;::.a:---lt:':ill un~:-2::::"1ln,::: c-",--
S~J~\ ~~0C2S3. The S.3~2 c8ncl~ston ~J re3ched by t~
T~~:l!S CQ~.:32~V3':~~~ A,~11:'5Q~Y Couns;?l, ~!~i2h i~ i~~
?2';)r:.J2Cj --1,1336 -::t2:-l0 t~) th2 TC.....:l D.)":.c~ .:';-::'3.t23 ":\-~
S~C10US f13'~s anj 0~~issi,~ns In c~e 0~=3 r2~~~:: it
; : 3. .~~ '-:;;<~_l 3. :=. .,~ '::1'~ !.J,)'3 S :.) ~ 'j i --:.. 1.::: J cJ. 1 'I .
~::~c.~, couns2LI3
3.:"J _8,-)."\t c:-tJ.: } -:-:::".2::--:"::
~roj2t:t is t:)t311j ~it:l0Ut
St3t;2S 3~ ).'i'~2 3~:;, 'Nit::'
"'-<2 C i:. .
3)~r~?C13t2 for this
~.3 ~;le S~Q~~ haildboa%
:-;3'] 3.::-:S
'12~3~~inJ anj S2J~Al1:
There are many situations where a specific
project and rezoning issue are so tightly
interwoven that is is impractical to treat
the generic land use oriented concerns
separately. Then it is useful to consider the
rezoning as though it is one of the approvals
necessary for the project.
I_ 13 cla3c in t~i3 i~3t3.~C2
9c~9osinJ a Ch3r1]~ ~c zona t~
v3ci~ty of diEE?c~nt 9roj~ct3.
S=22ific pcoject i, ~i~i ~~LC:l
th3.t the
~~1'J"";
T:-lC
',l:? 'l'~ lC;J,~:::-
is
r.c':.
3:1.} n)"':"~:;2 r 8E a
d2'li~1:J~):;;c has a
L:l. '';~)::' "f-? :lU~1e cou s
,.J()\j l'
.~,
,
,
The L'o'.-ln Boa rd
Town o~ Southold
F28rua~f 21, 1936
p 3.) <:-? T;l :>2 ~=
intesiva uses on a single Sit2. He knows specifically
how many motel units, how large a restaurant and how
~a~y boat slips he wis118S for his new facility. Under
SEQR~, a g211e~ic inpact stateme~t is si~ply not
2y?r:Jpci3te.
_;t ;>0.:]'2: 3 oE [liS letter, c0l1ns21 quotes 92.']8 8-15 oE
c~e SEQRA h3~dbo~~ i~ support of his argument that a
~2neric statd;nen~ ~oul(j be appropriate. Howevar,
counsel f3ils to quote the ci~cu~stances fav~ring suc~
tr23t~ent. The nu~bec one ci~2urlstance listed which
woulj f~.;)~ such tre3tme~t is whe~ lithe applic~nt h35 no
S~~'22~=ic 9c\~je2':. p12:l:"l=:':" (3S,)?). :-1a:i-:boc:<. page B-!3)
-:-=..:~-:? I t:l3.: i.s si:u.92.J r.,J~ tn~ C3.~'3'? 3."1.: .3. rJ2'1-?~1=
3~2:~";~~~ L3 i~3~~~icie~t.
~:: ;:;"1''.;2 J '): :--...is 1~tt2::, C0L1:l32l st3.tes, :cef2::ci,1'-':;
,:.:'-~'::-.1'2n.''):C3' cGnsJlt?':1L., Fcede-:-ic:-z R.2utec, II L:: the
:~o~c.:!. C2r~.)li:'13. ;>l3.l1n::1;l consult3.nt ',i~lO critisized the
J~IS h3~ b22~ S2~t t~e Dastec pla:1 u~date back;roul1d
s~~.j~~3, ~IJ5~ oE C~2 ql12stions h~ has c3is2~ would have
je8n 2~3:~2C2~.~ 1:1 t~le first instance, ~r. Reuter had
j~::~ce n:~ the ~ac~~r.~l~nd st~di~5, thd pc~?osed master
):~~, ~~~ t~2 ~r8pa3ed z~ning code. All his CO~Dents
~2=a ~2~2 in the context DE those ;~:JCI12e:lts. Furthee,
3.3 c::.:::. b~? see:1 .trc):-:l a. r2'lie'N of ~'lr. Reuter's COfll.r:lents on.
t:12 ~3st2e Dla~ and 9roposed zonin; foe the site that
~2ra su~~itted to the Baaed at the HaTIlet meating on
~~jc..Jacl 1.;1" 1986, the back;Jround st'Jdie:3 and onastee
?!3:1 ~8 not SUDCO~t the subject proposal being located
i-j :1 l'Y-I de:-'.sity r'2s:..d-=nti31 ar-2a on s:Jch a s:-1all
2~b}y~~~t ~it~ si~ni:ica~~ envi~~n~2:l:~: constraints.
?::~~~i3."J_3 COI..:.n.5.-=: s':-~I):""::8 "'::2';~'~-.>l th~)se oac~:;!:":J\Jnd st'J::i-:?3
"i':;1:":'. '--::":-:13.--::1:.
Sc?::::.:;r;2, --., ':..12 C?(:2n~ th.3':. <:OU.I.32}. i~~:::l:"'::;3 t;l~l': :-1::.-.
~2~t2~ :s ~)t f3~ili~~ wit~ Lo~g 131anc and i:1
9acticulac eas~ end zoninJ, ~lannin~ anj envir~nQe~tal
issues, he ~ig:1t r~'lL8W ~~. Reuter's pr~E2ssional
C~SU~8 a~tdched t~ ~oth hi3 comnents on the OSIS and his
c~~n2~ts on the ~rop:~sad master plan. If he did he
-.v'Ju2.,-} Ei,T2 t;-i3.:' :.1:-. ~eut.-?c has b8'2.'1 i:1I~1."2d in
?la:1:1in; iss.les O~ ~o~g Island EIJr thirty-six ye3rs anj
r-
~""'.
. .
.~
("~
"
The 1'0';:1 3Cd.:.-j
?cwn ot SOU[~01j
?e::;rudr.-f 21/ 193i)
PiL;:;2 E'OU::-
has wark0j to devolo9 planning analyes, master plans,
zo~ing COd2S, su~division regu13tio~s and othe~ studi~3
E'~~ th8 Long 1313~~ nu~ici9alities of Qucg~e, Ri\ler~edj,
Garden City, H~~tillgton, Islip, Lindenhucst Village,
Village oE ?~rt ~ashington, To~n of Eas~ ~ampton, and in
fact, he ~a3 the draEter of the o~i'Jinal master plarl E0~
t~e Town of Soutl1a~ptan, w~2re ccun5~1 resides.
7:12 a9?lica~t's 13te attempts to ratiorl,~lize the
i~~d2~U3Ci~s o~ t~e Q~=S submitte;j 8USt not be accept2J
C.1:S 30a~,j. IE, 33 c~e a~pli=a:l~ 3U]g8sts, he will
.....,,- ',:-::: c-?.3~:::;::;C:~':"''1; t,:::; ":2:-::'.3.':'[1 COt:',::l.2:t:'; 0:1 t~12 D::15, ne
::-":'::'3 _>..-'? ::....3<. dS ,-~e~ ~h~..3 30aed 0: 3.:1:'-' S:..lj3~~-:;d2:~t
::;;-.:'"1';; a~:.ic,"1 ~'='~~; li.':i.;;3.'c.-2d Eo:" t3.i.!.:1t"2 t,-) cori1)lj ".;:.:.:..
~~2 ~~~'Ji~2:~2~:'3 c: 3~JRA. T:1is w0uld c2~tai:lly n~t 02
i:-1 t~lc BC;'"i::".:.;.lS, t>12 C8~TJ.U,"1i~y's, or t:12 a.?~li'::3.n:.ls 225':.
i~'::.e ':""23 ~s.
'.oJ ::::~ :.:
I:i ':.2 ,::"'12:"!.':'::":3
j",:; 1:1 t;-~2
d:1,j
-,oJ_)-:..l;~
and -....0IJlj 3u:::-:11t
interest to ~3ve
that
a hll
:-Jr2<>2 ('
. "
~ '-
30-3.:".":: IS
~..=:._l-
,." '- -~ '-
.:~,~:~~? 2n~~r~~'le:1~al
. -
"C2'/ :"8"; 0:
t;l-2
9r.:Jj2Ct 3t this
c2r;3.:.-d. t::; t:1is
'.-Ii '[:1 the Le'J ie'", 0:
for the cO~~unitJ.
2~rlj :j3':2, S~ t~at
J~~j2::': :;.3.n ~e a~=2.~
:'::2 ~C09:J32d 2onin;
3. '!. 1 1 S S U -2 -3 .".J i ~ '1
S i;m....: 1:. 3.neous l.y
d:1d .1l3..-;tec pl:3.n
Since"::"e11,
;, -
....; I, ' /2 //
, /1, I /. ~/I/
L II.I.~-r /,-{I.'/:
C'l c i,~ ~-:)~;~:; r '~~ ~J
- -, ~
RECl:IVED
;J~PN' 79DS...%th,7 8:~lJ:'J',f(_.
-G?k~,~Cf /?-~
8.~~
~vb~
..'
.
;\PR 4 1986
STATE OF NEW YORK
70"''' Cl"r<: Soul hold DEPARTMENT OF ST A TE
ALBANY. N.Y. 12231
GA'LSSHAFFER April 1, 1986
SECRETARY OF STATE
Ms. Judith Terry
Town Clerk
Town of South old
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
Re: F-85-455
Southport Development Corp.
Town of South old
Dear l-1s. Terry:
Mr. Barton asked that I review the document you subnitted
entitled "Dredged Spoil Analysis for Southport Development".
This document should provide the information necessary to knew
the nature of the proposed dredged material and therefore to
make decisions on acceptable disposal options. However, I have
found serious shortcomings:
1. On page six I am essentially misquoted. My statement
was that I had been unable to locate standards. Stan-
dards set by E.P.A. do exist and I have since located
them. Upland disposal requires that E.P. toxicity
testing be performed, however, which is not the case
with this document.
2. The paragraph on the bottom of page six is incumplete.
The full wording is "In the absence of more definitive
knowledge on the pollution effects of dredged material
or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredged
sediments at the disposal sites, the following physi-
cal and chemical parameters will be used to determine
whether biological testing of sediments will be called
for...". Thus, the decision making process may actu-
ally require an additional set of tests.
3. Although the proposed dredged material is presumed to
be Class I (page 10), I could find no data to back
this up. It is necessary to have proper data to com-
pare to the values in the table on page seven.
/' /1-1.: 1 , I -~ (__~
Ms. Judith Terry
April 1, 1986
Page 2
4. As stated on page 10, very minute quantities of
certain organic chemicals can render dredged material
contaminated; for example, 1 part per million (ppn)
of PCB. However, the test methods used were not sen-
sitive enough to measure such small values. In the
case of the PCB chemicals (Arochlor 1016-1260) the
minimum that could be measured was 40 ppn. Since
there are a total of seven Arochlors, the test materi-
al could be extremely contaminated yet not be shown as
such by the test. Even allowing for differences
between wet and dry weights, the situation is similar
for DDT and Dieldrin. Testing performed on proposed
dredged material should be in keeping with the stan-
dards to be met. I'lhen Ippn of a chemical may reflect
contamination the testing must be sensitive enough to
show this.
In my judgement no decision on the suitability
subject material for a particular disposal means can
from this document. Additional testing and retesting
cal and chemical parameters are necessary. If you
questions you may call me at (516) 474-3642.
of t L -
be mad2
of physi--
have an:,'
Sincerely,
:: ' /
,',",-r'-li
Larry Enoch
Environmental Analyst
Coastal Management Program
LE:hm
cc: C. Hamilton - DEC Region I
\'I. Barton - Coastal nanagement Program
.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARING
RECONVENED from FEBRUARY 25, 1986
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
APRIL 8, 1986
8:00 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO "M-l" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT.
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
* * *
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I would like to open the public hearing. This is a
reconvened public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement of Southport Development. Original hearing was held on February
25th, 1986 and recessed until today. Now, is there anyone here would like
to speak? Any representatives of Southport Development?
LYNNE M. GORDON, Attorney, firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn: We are
the attorneys for Southport Development and I'll be pleased to yield the floor and
listen to the other comments and then I will comment on those comments. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. Is there anyone else would like to speak on behalf
of the applicant? (No response.) Is there anyone would like to make any comments
at all on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Sir, go ahead.
JOHN SHEA, Attorney, firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, Riverhead and
East Hampton, New York: We represent Henry Weisman and Frank Flynn. As
you may know, our firm has filed comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and we have also filed comments on the Addendum to the Draft. I
believe you received our most recent set of comments on March 26th, 1986. Without
repeating a great deal of what we've said in those comments, I decided it would be
most beneficial to the Board to hear perhaps from one of the experts that helped
prepare those comments, Lawrence Penny, who's an Environmental Planner for the
Town of East Hampton, and is acting on behalf tonight, on behalf of Mr. Weisman
and Mr. Flynn. I had prepared this in a question and answer format with Mr.
Penny and I don't know the best way to do this since we have one microphone.
Mr. Penny, could you give your address.
~"",
O-.~ {Q>
\"" '\
LI\y
LAWRENCE PENNY, Environmental Consultant:
New York.
450 Noyack Road, Sag Harbor,
Page 2 - Southport
MR. SHEA: And how are you employed?
MR. PENNY: I am the Environmental Protection Director of the Town of East
Hampton.
MR. SHEA: Could you give your background and education as an Environmental
Planner?
MR. PENNY: Yes, I have a Masters degree in Biological Sciences and have been
a consultant in biological analysis, biological reports and many other technical areas
that have to do with planning, and have been Environmental Planner for the Town
of East Hampton approximately a year, and since that time I've been the Environ-
mental Protection Director for the Town of East Hampton.
MR. SHEA: And you reviewed, did you not, the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on this project, as well as the Addendum to that Draft?
MR. PENNY: Yes,
reviewed both.
MR. SHEA: Right. In reviewing the Draft and the Addendum, could you explain
your rating of the quality of those sections dealing with wildlife and vegetation at
the proposed site?
MR. PENNY: Well, in terms of wildlife, it happens to be one of my areas of g.'eatest
expertise. The original DEIS was very deficient and the Addendum had some infot'ma
tion based on a relatively superficial look at the wildlife in the Cove area, on the
upland area, and---
MR. SHEA: When you say, "superficial look at the wildlife", what do you mean 7
MR. PENNY: Well, the sampling for shellfish, for example, was done at an in-
appropriate time, a few days at the end of January, beginning of February, and
I believe there's actually a one day sampling for say clams, other bivalves, and
if you were to do the appropriate sampling, and that's why it should have been
done earlier when the DEIS was written, you'd do it at a time when most of these
species were accessible. For example, the DEIS Addendum says there's no blue
crabs present in that site, and you don't sample for blue crabs in the end of
January, middle of winter, and other species--it says there's no bay scallops on
the site, and we all know that bay scallops, this past year, suffered dramatic
population decreases and are absent from many small bodies of waters, coves
and creeks, embayments on both the north and the south forks because of the
mystery algae bloom. In general I find it hard to believe that one days sampling
would turn up three hard clams in the sampling areas when I know that the bottom
type is suitable for hard clams and I have communication evidence from baymen that
work those waters that they do produce hard clams in that type of sampling. In
terms of the waterfowl, the Addendum does identify black duck, mallards, and so
forth, and my two visits identified several other waterfowl species, and also black
crow n night herons, great blue herons---
MR. SHEA: Mr. Penny, you were talking about the baymen before. Do commercial
fishermen actually use this cove?
MR. PENNY: Commercial fishermen do use that cove.
MR. SHEA: Based on your research and knowledge of the area, what species
would you expect to find at the site?
Page 3 - Southport
.
.
MR. PENNY: What shellfish species or what species?
MR. SHEA: Start with shellfish.
MR. PENNY: First of all, it's suitable habitat for a variety of shellfish because
it's protected waters. It has a fresh water influx, therefore it would make it a
very good habitat for say bringing up scallops--starting scallops, bringing them
up. Hard clams, oysters should do well there. They like--especially oysters
like a little brackish water, and also the more fresh the surface waters--the few
the starfish predators. We all know that starfish predaceous is becoming a very
big problem again in Peconic/Gardiners systems, and these little coves are ideal
bodies of water for not only catching shellfish, but also for breeding shellfish--
natural stock.
MR. SHEA: What other species? What other shellfish species would you find
here?
MR. PENNY: It depends upon the season, of course, and the year, because
certain years are more--Iike in bay scallops--are more prolific than other years.
MR. SHEA: Would you expect to find blue crabs?
MR. PENNY: Well, I had never seen a blue crab in there, because I haven't been
there at the appropriate time, but I have, again, had hearsay evidence from people
who have used the cove, that there are blue crabs there. I would expect to find
blue crabs there, yes.
MR. SHEA: All right, yes. What I'm asking you is knowing the habitat, you've
studied the habitat---
MR. PENNY: It's good habitat for blue crabs.
MR. SHEA: What is this good habitat--what other species is this good habitat for?
MR. PENNY: American eel, which is a very important commercial species. Several
fish species, especially big fish species.
MR. SHEA: Winter flounder?
MR. PENNY: Winter flounder would be in a situation like that. Would even breed
in a situation like that.
MR. SHEA: And what did the DEIS conclude in terms of wildlife?
MR. PENNY: Well, in terms of the shellfisheries, it was very
on the three hard clams and a few other bits--odds and ends.
waterfowl is concerned they---
negative, based
As far as the
MR. SHEA: Well, before we go on to waterfowl, is your analysis of the site in
agreement or disagreement with the DE IS?
MR. PENNY: Oh, it's in disagreement, because I think there's more there then
has been presented, and it's got--it's not a bad habitat. It's a good habitat for
shellfish, so obviously we're in disagreement.
MR. SHEA: Now the DEIS concludes that the project will increase the availability
of shellfish in the cove. What is your assessment of that conclusion?
Page 4 - Southport
MR. PENNY: Well, I'm not quite sure what anaylsis that's based on. It would
be my experience that in those kinds of situations where you have intense shore-
side development that not only the diversity of the shellfish goes down, but the
individuals. Numbers of particular species population tends to go down. It depends
upon the intensity, but we're talking about fairly intense use here. So it would be
hard for me to say there was any kind of evidence that would suggest that the
shellfishery in themselves would be enhanced by development of this kind.
MR. SHEA: Well, based on your review of the project, what do you believe would
be the impact of this project as proposed upon the shellfish?
MR. PENNY: Well, it's very intense situation. Here we have three intense uses.
Eighty-two units, a large marina--expanded marina, and a restaurant, and other
services, accommodations and so forth, boat accommodations, maybe some minor
repair. That kind of thing. It's very intense and I would say that the--in terms
of several impacts from the proposed development. The quality of the water and
the quality of thenand diversity of the wildlife--would go down considerably.
MR. SHEA: All right. I'm addressing now specifically shellfish. What would be
the impact of this project,as proposed,on the shellfish in the area?
MR. PENNY:
thenfirst of
the basin.
In terms of probability the impacts would not be good, because of
all the great amount of water--wastewater to be generated and ente'-
MR. SHEA:
shellfish.
The DEIS said that the project would increase the availability of
MR. PENNY:
don't believe that it would, first of all. Okay?
MR. SHEA: Do you believe it would--so you don't believe it would increase the
shellfish?
MR. PENNY: can't see how it could, no.
MR. SHEA: Do you believe it would decrease the shellfish.
MR. PENNY: I believe that it would tend to decrease the number--tend to deCl-ease
their spawning. Yes, those kind of things.
MR. SHEA: The DEIS add res sed the question of surface water quality, and as
did the Addendum. Do you know what records were used for that analysis?
MR. PENNY: Well, the Addendum provided the first evidence we've seen on the
surface water quality. Those three tests--three different days of coliform days
presumably gathered by the DEe, and run in their labs under controlled conditions,
and what we'd like to know, but we don't have, and we asked for, was more data.
Data that would benthat we could see that would associate with a more peak time.
It is interesting that one of the--a couple of the coliform values, in fact, exceeded
the limits--were very high for total coliform. They were 240 in January. That's
rather unusual unless you already have---
MR. SHEA:
Why is that unusual?
MR. PENNY:
you see that
Well, because in January activities that were uses, and most cases
the --that the level of coliform contamination is relatively strongl _
-. Y
Page 5 - South port
.
.
coincident with the increased activity around the water.
MR. SHEA: And what occurs in the summer?
MR. PENNY: In almost all cases you have heightened coliform values where you
have intense use around the surface water.
MR. SHEA: So what impact would this complex as proposed, this project as proposed,
have on the coliform counts in this cove?
MR. PENNY: As far as I can see they could not help but go up. SOn-
MR. SHEA: Why is that?
MR. PENNY: Because of the added impact. We're talking about something on the
order of 15,000 or more gallons per day of effluent. including boat wastes, or el se
we're talking about the possibility of c1ean-outnpump-out station, I appreciate that.
We're talking about the surface runoff from activities, and so forth. We're talking
about swimming pool use. We're talking about a lot of intense use and area that
has a very high water table. It's going to see a lot of that effluent is going to go
right into the cove. Whether it goes in in one day, or whether it goes in in a few
days. Okay? And it's been my experiencenl've looked at a lot of these kinds of
situations that coliform values go up in those kinds of circumstances. I've very
rarely seen--in fact I have never seen one case where they go down, or where
they remain the same in developed areas.
MR. SHEA: Would you please explain your review of the analysis of then I'm going
to rephrase that--the DEIS makes certain statements about the ability of the cove
to flush itself. Would you explain to the Board your view of that--those statements?
MR. PENNY: Well, this cove--if you look at this COve and you look at the topography
of the COve and you look at the way it's shaped and so forth, look at its inlet. itn
there's a constriction there. They're going to dredge the constriction--make it a
little deeper--the inlet and so forth. A small embayment like that. a small cove,
has very limited flushing. It has a very long, extended turnover time. Giving
an example: the turnover time at say Northwest Harbor they think---which is not
a cove, which is out south of Shelter Island and north of East Hampton and bounded
by North Haven on the west and Cedar Point on the east, with no inlets. It's an
open body of water with constrictionsnabout 23 days they figure the turnover.
Latest calculations. We're talking about many, many more than a few months to
actually turnover all the water in a small cove like this. So it has limited flushing
compared to open bodies of water and the little bit we can do in terms of dredging
to enhance that flushing is going to make it very small amounts difference, really.
MR. SHEA: The DEIS included certain comments by a Mr. Redman of DEC. Do
you have any views about those comments?
MR. PENNY:
the town and
of context---
Well, I know Jim Redman very well. Work with him all the time in
I don't think it appropriate to use a remark, which I think is out
MR. SHEA:
Why do younexplain why you think it's out of context.
MR. PENNY: Because the remark refers to the Bay and does not refer to the cove,
and that refers to the Bay, not the inshore edge of the Bay, but the outer part of
the Bay. Obviously the outer part of the Bay is fairly well flushed.
Page 6 - Southport
MR. SHEA: Given the level of tidal flushing in the cove and the geography of
the cove, do you have an opinion as to whether the type of use, as proposed,
is appropriate? Based, again, on the tidal flushing and geography of the cove)
MR. PENNY: Well, again, I'm going to say that this cove is going to be asked to
accommodate on the order of five to ten thousand gallons a day of a effluent. We
don't really know much of this effluent is going to flow into the cove, because
we don't have any tough surface flow data, but it looks like, as far as I can see,
that the bulk of that effluent is really going to flow towards the cove, and con~
sequently a much smaller use would produce much smaller amount of effluent and
would have much dramatic--much less dramatic impacts and would be more flushable,
but I would say anyone of these three uses perchance safely mitigated would have
an impact that could be mitigated, but I don't see how you're going to mitigate these
three intense uses taken together with some other uses that are a little bit ambiguous
at this point.
MR. SHEA: On your inspection of the site, did you see any waterfowl or other~--
or water birds?
MR. PENNY: Yes, I did.
MR. SHEA: Could you explain to the Board what you saw?
MR. PENNY: Red breasted mergansers (?), scup, porgy scup, black crown night
herons, great blue herons, buffelhead, about four different species of diving
ducks, which means that they're in there--they were diving, by the way. So
they're in there feeding on things on the bottom. The diving ducks eat the :'
little fishes, ? vegetation when they can't find those species. About twenty-five
of these diving ducks on both occasions. They weren't all there on the two occasions
that I visited.
MR. SHEA: How would you rate the population levels in terms of the waterfowl'
MR. PENNY: I think it's a very good habitat for waterfowl and for water bi,'ds.
Good habitat because a lot of the edge has not been disturbed. There's still a lot
of wooded edge along that body of water. There are shallows where they can dive
and feed, you know, with fairly high visibility. Would be good for dabbling ducks,
mallards and black ducks that were mentioned in the Addnedum to the DEIS. I
could see black ducks actually breeding in an area like that, and certainly malla,-ds.
MR. SHEA: Did you list--a moment ago you listed water birds or waterfowl?
MR. PENNY: Waterfowl and a few water birds.
MR. SHEA: And a few water birds. What other birds did you see at the site, 01-
would you expect to see at this habitat, based on your study of the habitat 7
MR. PENNY: Well, you probably at one time or another would have just about every
single waterfowl that uses the Peconic system, flies over it and so forth. You would
have in addition to black crown night herons, great blue herons. You would have
? herons, and you would have some egrets, casual egrets. I don't think they
would breed in that vicinity. Ospreys would dive into the cove from time to time
and take a fish or something. I don't think there are any ospreys breeding on the
periphery or in that immediate area. You would have several different kinds of
shore birds at times moving through. Not a lot of the ocean ? by any means,
Page 7 - Southport
.
.
but you would have individuals working around the shore - yellow legs, those
kind of shore birds.
MR. SHEA: And how would you rate the quality of the habitat for those birds?
MR. PEN NY: Well, it's particularly good for diving ducks because of the benthic
habitat and it's not bad for herons because of the availability of big fishes and the
shallows and so forth. I'm not too sure it would be terrific for shore birds, but
it could accommodate some.
MR. SHEA: What would this project do, specifically in terms of the quality of the
habitit, for those birds?
MR. PENNY: Well, it's hard to say, except that this intense use again, during the
peak time. It would not be friendly to almost any water birdsnperchance mute
swans which seems to take kindly to humans and occasionally mallard ducks, but
in general this kind of use, this kind of area with lack of protection--you're going
to have boats going--120 or more boats going back and forth all the time, or sitting
there and sometimes radios and lights and daytime activity, nighttime activity, swimming
pool, tennis courts maybe. I'm not sure. Cars coming and out, you know? All that
kind of stuff adds up and it would devalue this habitat value, you know? This water-
fowl value, water bird value considerably.
MR. SHEA: The DEIS concluded that there would be an increased diversity in the
wildlife population by improving habitat. Do you agree with that conclusion?
MR. PENNY: Well, it's hard for me to see how they're going to increase the
diversity of say the waterfowl. You have a fairly high diversity there now. I
think what they may mean is you may get a few more land birds, cardinals, mocking-
birds, those kinds of things, because of some horticultural planting kind of thing.
I don't see anything in that DEIS, or the Addendum that speaks of--that will actually
result in the increase in the diversity of wildfowl--wildlife in general. I don't see
that.
MR. SHEA: The DEIS makes some statements about the impact of septic waste from
the project on the quality of ground and surface waters. Do you have an opinion
as to those conclusions in the DEIS and the Addendum. The Addendum addresses
that issue, septic waste, as well.
MR. PENNY: Well, I think even then I think the DEIS and the Addendum admits
that the so-called denitrification system will only take out nitrates and presumably
most of the coliforms. It says it doesn't take out the chemicals and there are a
lot of chemicals associated with these kinds of uses, as you know. And the question
of viruses moving underneath the ground is very interesting here, because we know
that work that's been done the last few years has shown that viruses migrate through
soils, depending upon the soil consistency, quality and so forth, great distances.
MR. SHEA: Stopping there for a moment. The denitrification system to which you
refer, does that protect surface and ground water, or not?
MR. PENNY: To a limited degree. If it works well--if it works well. If it works
properly.
MR. SHEA: Right. My question was just--protect both surface and groundwater?
MR. PENNY: It was designed to protect groundwater. That's why the denitrificatiou
Page 8 - Southport
system came into existence, to protect groundwater in areas where you had high
density and you didn't have sewage treatment facility, you didn't have the avail
abi lity of the sewage treatment pipes, you know, going to a centralized plant, and
you had very high density and because of this high density you begin to exceed
the nitrate levels, which is ten milligrams per liter. Therefore the groundwater
would not be drinkable down gradient, or on site.
MR. SHEA: Would there still be a significant amount of effluent from this project'
MR. PENNY: There's a great deal of effluent from this project.
MR. SHEA: And would it have a significant impact?
MR. PENNY: It would have--in my way of thinking it would have a very big
impact, yes.
MR. SHEA: And would you describe that impact.
MR. PENNY: Well, you have to keep in mind that a motel, and especially extensive
one, and one that might become, who knowsnyou know, bought units and so forth.
and a restaurant. All sorts of health codes that are involved here. All parts of the
health codenthe New York State Health Code and Suffolk Sanitary Code--in tenT's of
keeping them clean. So they have to use a lot of cleaners. Restaurants have to use
a variety of chemicals to keep them clean. They're inspected routinely by Suffolk
County Health Services inspectors. Okay? There are a lot of chemicals that are
associated with maintaining grounds, and maintaining swimming pools. I know. I
deal with them all the time in the town. Several chemicals. Chemicals that you
would not put on your skin, like methylene chloride, and so forth. There are a
lot chemicals that have to do with maintaining boats. Granted this isn't going to
be a boatyard as such, but I remind the Board about triabucile (?), for example.
which is the most common preservative paint--bottom paint, which the EPA is think
ing of banning because it's so toxic to shellfish and so forth. You're going to have
a lot of boat chemicals around. You also have an occasional petroleum leak, 0'-
petroleum chemical getting into the surface water. You have--I mean there's a
whole bunch of chemicals here that in addition to the bacterial stuff they're worried
about, that the DEIS does not address. It does say that the chemicals aren't taken
out by the system.
MR. SHEA: By the way, would you explain your experience with wastewate,-
management in the Town?
MR. PENNY: Yes, I'm in charge, in terms of one aspect of our scavenger waste
treatment plant. I work with a--we have a scavenger waste treatment like Southold
has, and we've been told that we better keep that plant in very good shape in terms
of what goes into it, because we don't want to kill the cultures. I've worked with
the scavenger waste lagoons now, which there are four of. I work with septic
systems. I work with the Suffolk County Health Services. We have a standard in
Southold Town of 150 feet from--I mean East Hampton Town, of 150 feet from surface
water, so Suffolk County has a standard of 100, so I have to make sure that we're
getting 150 feet from leaching pools to surface waters and have to keep Suffolk
County Health Services on their guard in that respect, because frankly we've been
losing too many of our waters.
MR. SHEA: Mr. Penny, turning your attention again to the denitrification system.
does the proposed denitrification system take out the chemicals you referred to.1
Page 9 - Southport
.
.
MR. PENNY: Doesn't take out.
MR. SHEA: Does it take our the viruses which affect shellfish?
MR. PENNY: It's never been demonstrated it takes out the viruses.
MR. SHEA: Does it take our bacteria?
MR. PENNY: In the sense that it works like a conventional leach pool system it
takes out, I would say, most of the bacteria.
MR. SHEA: How much--what percentage of the nitrates does it remove?
MR. PENNY: When it's working there's various figures. I think a ballpark figure
is somewhere between twenty-five and thirty percent. You have to keep this thing
tuned, however. It has to be charged. It has to be inspected every once in a
while to make sure that things are working, because it depends upon a biological
culture process.
MR. SHEA: So if there's a mistake in maintenance it may not even remove twenty-five
to thi rty percent?
MR. PENNY: That's true. It would then work like a normal septic system really.
MR. SHEA: All right, so then the denitrification system only denitrifies, and it
only does that up to a figure of about thirty percent.
MR. PENNY: It depends upon it again. I suppose it could exceed that on occasion.
It depends on a lot of things--temperature of the system, how it's working, the state
of the culture. You have sulphur and limestone and the quantity of those, the ratio
of those.
MR. SHEA: Generally if the system is in tuned it will remove only about thirty
percent--twenty-five to thirty percent?
MR. PENNY: That's the figure we hear.
MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the analysis in the DEIS about the uses of
chemicals at the site?
MR. PENNY: There is very little analysis. What they do says is because of the
use, ? use, there will be less--fewer chemicals. I find that hard to believe
and there are other uses that would ? your chemicals of this use.
MR. SHEA: Does it provide an accurate estimate of the boat use--the use of boat
maintenance?
MR. PENNY: They don't have any figures on how--to what degree the boats are
being maintained. They'll have to be washed down---
MR. SHEA: There's nothing in the Addendum or the DE IS on that?
MR. PENNY: No.
MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about restaurant cleaners?
Page 10 - Southport
MR. PENNY: No.
MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about pest control agents?
MR. PENNY: No.
MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about treatment chemicals for the dwelling units -?
MR. PENNY: No.
MR. SHEA: What about pool chemicals and turf management chemicals?
MR. PENNY: Nothing. It does say that limit turf so that there wiJl be low use
of fertilizers.
MR. SHEA: How would these, according to your review of the project, how would
these chemicals be disposed of?
MR. PENNY: Well, any chemicals that either go underground in that area, or are
on top of the ground, are going to find their way--because the water table, the
way it flows, are going to find their way into the neighboring surface waters, and
they're not going to be degraded on the, way, because things don't get degraded
I mean they do slightly, but there's very little bacterial activity underneath the
soil.
MR. SHEA: So they'll either be effluent or run-off.
MR. PENNY: Yes.
MR. SHEA: What would be the impact of that run-off or effluent of those chemicals
that we just discussed?
MR. PENNY: It will tend to degrade the qualify of the surface waters--of the cove
and of the nearby inshore Bay waters.
MR. SHEA: Did you review the DE IS analysis or representations concerning the
d rai nage and run-off at the site?
MR. PENNY: Well, the DEIS and Addendum continually refers to a zero storm water
management plan, but we really don't have any idea how that works, and I have
some very strong reservations about the plan here, not knowing how it works, but
I know that---
MR. SHEA: Was the plan disclosed?
MR. PENNY: Not really. It was mentioned as a concept on several pages.
MR. SHEA: So it was mentioned as a concept, but the specifics of the plan were
never disclosed?
MR. PENNY: Right.
MR. SHEA: So, going back to what you said before, it's your conclusion that
all of these--all of this run-off and effluent will end up in the surface waters
eventually?
MR. PENNY: Eventually it will end up in the surface waters. Some of it will
evaporate.
Page 11 - Southport .
.
MR. SHEA: Can you do an environmental review, as is required in a Draft EIS,
or the Addendum, without the drainage plan?
MR. PENNY: Well, I would say these three intense uses on this site, and the
elevation of the site with respect to floodplain, with respect groundwater, water
table, with respect to its proximity to wetlands behind it on one side and the
cove and Bay waters on the other side, I would say that the drainage plan is
absolutely crucial to mitigation. I'm not so sure that you could actually design
a drainage plan that would mitigate all three uses to the degree that they should
be mitigated, however.
MR. SHEA: But it is feasible then without it to do a proper environmental review?
MR. PENNY:
how that plan
engineering.
I most certainly would say that you'd have to have something about
is working, yes. Fairlynyou know, a few pages and some good
MR. SH EA : What would
we've been discussing?
control chemicals, etc.
be the impact on the surface waters of the run-off that
And I'd ask you to address the ? coliform 7, mosquito
MR. PENNY: Something that hasn't been mentioned here, but when you do bring
up--when you have 82 units and then others on boats and restaurant and so forth,
and there's got to be mosquitos in those wetlands back there. You're going to
have to--there's going to be a hue and cry for accelerated mosquito control. It's
like now, the County is using BT I, but they do use some hard pesticides, nybalm (?)
and so forth, foggers, and they would like to use abate(?) again, and abate is ?
to shellfish and so forth, but anyway in terms of--an exterminator can come in with
the proper license and spray the place, but I don't know of any place like this that
doesn't get sprayed routinely, especially during the summer when pests are such a
problem. There has always been carpenter ants and termites and a whole bunch of
control. So all these things are going--again I repeat it--I'm going to repeat it
again--all of them are going to end up in the water at one time. You know, like
the chloridane has.
MR. SHEA: And again, what's the impact of that ending up in the water?
MR. PENNY: The impact is the loss of reproductivity of the shellfish. Loss of
the water quality for certain fishes. The fish just wouldn't reproduce in the area
and so forth. Certain plankton are susceptible to these chemicals. Just a general
degradation of the water qualify for all the highest uses.
MR. SHEA: All right, shifting gears now, what's your assessment, as an environ-
mental planner, of the impact--what's your assessment, as an environmental planner,
of the acces s to the si te?
MR. PENNY: Well, I don't necessarily agree with the traffic study, because it
says there's not going to be any traffic impact. I think there certainly is a traffic
impact. It's--talking about a restaurant, 82 units, 20 employees coming back and
forth, day trips and so forth, and whereas I haven't done any traffic analysis on
my own, because I'm not really a traffic analyst, but an environmental planner
would consider that. First of all, the expansion of the road that would be required
here is certainly going to have some kind of impact on those wetlands behind that
area, because to accommodate the kind of traffic that we're going to be looking at
here. we certainly need a road that is safe in terms of the traffic coming in and
out and also for heavy vehicles, you know, garbage trucks and othel' surface vehicles.
Page 12 - South port
MR. SHEA: So the sixteen foot right-of-way is insufficient?
MR. PENNY: don't think the fifteen foot will meet Southold Codes. I'm not an
expert on Southold Codes. There is a subdivision which is around--there's a
sketch plan for a subdivision in the immediate area and I think that the road
would have to be brought up to the specs of the subdivision.
MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the sufficiency of the water supply for
the site?
MR. PENNY: For the sufficiency of the water supply?
MR. SHEA: Yes.
MR. PENNY: Well, 1---
MR. SHEA: refer you to the Greenport---
MR. PENNY: Right.
MR. SHEA: n-supply.
MR. PENNY: Well, I've read all that about the Greenport Water District having
all that water and so forth, but I will have to remind the Board that I have a
report in my briefcase, it's the Suffolk County Groundwater Resources Draft
Management Plan--or the Management Plan Draft of it, and it walks about Southold
public water supply and Southold has eight wells that are poor. Two that are
marginal. I think one that is good, and four that are what they call ambient,
which is the best quality. So it has the worst public water well record of any
Town in Suffolk County, and that is not only to do with nitrates, but nitrates IS
a problem. It has the second highest nitrate problem in Suffolk County, behind
Huntington. It also has aldicarb problems, proper ? problems, and so fOl'th,
It has a bunch of problems. I'm not their water planner, but I would say it's
not necessarily good water planning to just look the other way and say, yes, we
have enough there. We have enough volume perchance, but I'm not so sure that
we have the proper water quality.
MR. SHEA: Would you address the alternative section of the DEIS?
MR. PENNY: Just address it for the Board? Well, I know the alternatives lack~~
first of all the whole thrust of this thing is to get away from commercial use here,
but there are commercial uses that could be--I'm not so sure in terms of thei.-
profit-making ability--but there are commercial uses that are necessary polluting.
and I think it was a little bit of a sham to say that all commercial uses are polluting,
I think that given a good high quality marina in itself was not really explored in
detail in tel'ms of its feasibility financially. Okay, but that would benthat alternative
has been looked at by people who have looked at it superficially.
MR. SHEA: Is it possible that such an alternative would be less destructive to
the site?
MR. PENNY: There are several alternatives that would be less destructive for the
site. yes. And I think a good high-quality marina would be--absent these two other
high intense uses associated with it.
Page 13 - Southport .
.
MR. SHEA: Did the DEIS or Addendum present adequate economic data to support
the conclusions reached by the drafters?
MR. PENNY: Well, I will say that they used, I think, a Napa Valley study--
multiplier study, which I find to be a little bit out of place here, whereas there
are local studies. There are Suffolk County Planning studies, Long Island Regional
Planning Board studies. You have a situation here where it's hard to translate from
Napa Valley, which is a wine growing area, to a marina area where almost all of the
services are going to be provided right there, and it's hard to take that multiplier
from California and apply it to this situation here. This very local situation. Very
different kinds of economic parameters.
MR. SHEA: The Draft EIS and Addendum address--talk about the dredging that's
proposed for the project. What would be the impacts of the dredging as proposed?
MR. PENNY: Dredging can be beneficial and it can be deleterious. One of the
things I was thinking about is the bottom. We have a lot of clay out there. Now
if we dredge the silt, or the silt from the sand, the few things that the shellfish
are living in it releases clay, well, obviously we're taking away good shellfish
habitat, because clay is not good shellfish habitat in itself. You have to have
some kind of loose sediments on top of it to make a good habitat. On the other
hand, by dredging you increase flushing, which helps to decrease water quality
problems to a certain degree. Dredging has to be done carefully. One of the
problems here too is not only that you might remove the best part of the benthic
habitat, because when you dredge out--you know, dredge sand out over sand you
still have sand underneath to repopulate. Okay? Well, sometimes you dredge
muds away which are noxious and you still have good substrates underneath to be
repopulated again. Here we've got this spoil we don't really know that much
about it. We see some bottom crabs. It's very questionable that we can use
this spoil upland for all the things that they think you can use it for. For
wetland plantings, because it doesn't seem to have the proper quality as far as
I can see. Also it's loaded with metals, and it would just run off again if you
put the stuff upland the metals would leach out and go right back up in the basin,
and so forth. I don't think it's appropriate for that spoil for that site to do all
the thi ngs they want to do with it.
MR. SHEA: Based on your review of the DEIS and Addendum please tell the
Board what your opinion is about the scope of the project.
MR. PENNY: I think I said this before. I think it's too ambitious for the size
of the upland parcel, keeping in mind it's surrounded by wetlands and surface
waters, and the I imited access.
MR. SHEA: And based on your review of the Addendum and Draft EIS, what
is your view of the information provided for the adequacy of the information
provided in those two documents.
MR. PENNY: I would like to see more information obviously. We don't have
enough information on the sediment that would be dredged. There's displacement.
We don't have the zet-o stormwater management plan. We don't know how the
groundwater is flowing underneath, because we don't have any test wells. We
do see some questionable--we see two corings there that shows the water table
about seven feet higher than one and another, and they're only a hundred feet
apart. Something's going on there. If we're going to put a denitrification plant
in here we want to--we really have to know what we're doing. We have to have
good substt-ates, you know. Those kinds of things are missing. Would like to see
Page 14 - Southport
what the coliforms look like in the--Iater on in the season when we have some more
active use, and I would like to see a better shellfish analysis.
MR. SHEA: Last, turning your attention to--there is a section in the Draft E is,
and a section in the Addendum which compares--where it was set forth purported
benefits as well as impacts of various aspects of the project. If you could first
turn to the Addnedum, to the sheets from the Addendum, and those sheets are
page 54 to 55, 56, and focus in on the key impactsnthe purported beneficial
impacts, and explain your disagreement or agreement with those particular beneficial
impacts.
MR. PENNY: Well, first then the soil. I'm not so sure---they don't talk about
removing the benthic soil which I find to be very important.
MR. SHEA: If you could address your comments to the Board.
MR. PENNY: Yes, excuse me. So I would say there is an adverse impact. They
say none, but I would say removing the benthic soil might be an adverse impact
here. Topography--creating an aesthetically pleasing land forms--I'm not so sw-e
you're going to beuyou have to build up that site and so I'm not so sure how
you're going to create an aesthetically pleasing land form on that site. Granted
right now it's disturbed and something could be done with it to make it more
aesthetic, but I'm not so sure that this is going to make it any more aesthetic
from what I've seen thus far. The groundwater--beneficial impact they say is
upgrading of existing sanitary system. I think they're talking about-n--
MR. SHEA: Moving back for a second. There's a statement about a zero run-off
storm water management system. That's on page 54.
MR. PENNY: Oh, right, we talked about that. It could be a beneficial aspect
if we could do it here. I'm not so sure we could do it, personally, because of
the high water table, the substrates. The limited amount of land and the fact
that we are so close to surface waters and wetlands on both sides.
MR. SHEA: Is there any basis in either of the documents you reviewed for that
conclusion?
MR. PENNY: No. Not at all.
MR. SHEA: Moving on to the upgrading of existing sanitaryn
MR. PENNY: It says the groundwater will have a beneficial impact upg,-ading the
existing sanitary system, and I think what we're doing here is we',-e see a sub
stitution of a system that's going to handle 15,000 gallons per day----a day not a
substitution for a system that's designed to handle four or five hundred gallons
per day. That is not a quid pro quo trade-off. I don't see that's a beneficial
impact. We're talking about upgrading the existing sanitary system that would
be a beneficial impact obviously. Okay? Surface waters--they talk about planting
vegetation to capture the gasoline leaks and other leaks of other petroleum products.
I happen to just come back from Oil Spill School in Galveston, Texas A & M and
believe me, that gasoline runs right through that vegetation. Vegetation does not
capture gasoline and other ? I don't think that would work. You might
stabilize the land. That would be nice.
MR. SHEA: How about vegetation. Installation of buffer areas?
. Page 15 - South port .
.
MR. PENNY: Well, that certainly would help in terms of erosion. Stabilization
of areas, but I'm reluctant to sacrifice 7,000 feet of high marsh and intertidal
marsh to produce more marsh. I think it's going to be very difficult to produce
here because of the steep sidingness of the areas, and it's not an area that easily
lends itself to marsh production and I would like to save the existing marsh firstly,
and maybe add to it.
MR. SHEA: And then under wildlife there is a purported beneficial impact of
increased diversity.
MR. PENNY:
the diversity,
doing.
Again I think I talked about that earlier. How we could increase
increase the quality of wildlife habitat here by doing what we're
MR. SHEA: Moving to the Draft EIS, pages 28 through--28 and 29, could you
address some of the beneficial impacts on those pages?
MR. PENNY: Some of these are the same. I think it's interesting to--28 here
where it talks about wildlife again, increased diversity by improving habitat.
don't think we're going necessarily increase diversity and are limited in what
ki nd of habitat we can add here, because the use--the coverage of that site is
such that it limits us greatly. The temporary loss of 7,000 square fee of high
marsh 1M is not going to be compensated for by planting along the edge buffer
dune vegetation and so forth. All of those there I don't see any benefit in the
whole area. Removal of undesirable species. I'm not so sure what they mean
there. Maybe the phragmities, but phragmities can be desirable and does serve
a lot of purpose in erosion control and so forth and filtration and so forth. Poison
Ivy, maybe. I don't know. I just see that all these benefits are not carefully
thought out and a lot of them are very ?
MR. SHEA: All right, thank you, Mr. Penny. Members of the Board, you already
have received Mr. Penny's curriculum vitae. I believe that was submitted with his
original submission. It outlines his many years of work in this area. The original
Draft EIS had some serious problems and they were to be corrected in the Addendum.
I think after you review our written comments submitted by my partner Christopher
Kelley, who could not be here tonight, Frederick Reuter, a land use planner, and
the written comments as well of Mr. Penny, you'll see that the Addendum did not
rectify the problems that were found by not only our experts but the many other
people who--several other people, including the Szepatowski group--the problems
that were in the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We believe the
Draft is still inadequate, but more important it's pretty clear that this project is
going to have some very serious impacts and before the Board goes any further
with this, significant new information has to be developed along the lines that
Mr. Penny layed out tonight. I thank you for your patience. I know this is
fairly tedious material for you to have to--for you to sit through. I appreciate
your patience and your time. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak on
this matter? Ruth?
RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: We'd just like to support every-
thing that has been written or stated tonight in opposition to the Addendum and
to the Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement. One just point of information, we
have the same problem here as we had this afternoon with the water filters, in
that you give certain specifications to the Board of Health for say the water filter,
or in this case the denitrification system, and the Board of Health will approve it,
Page 16 - Southport
but there is not one shred of date on Long Island as to the reliability of this
system, except in the experimental project. Just keep that in mind. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else like to make a comment to the Board?
INGEBORG FLYNN, Southold: I'm a realtor and appraiser for the past seventeen
years. I have passed the--successfully the courses of the SRA in residential
appraisal and income appraisal, and I'm a member at the moment of the Easter'n
Board of Realtors. I was a member of the Long Island Board of Realtors, and
? for Suffolk County, and a member of many committees. I'm a director fo,'
the State of New York, including land use and fair housing and their legislative
committee. I also have studied these aspects and I would like to talk to the
application of --one aspect of the application which has been largely overlooked
and I refer to the economic factors involved in the applicant's attempt to interpret
them as justification for a change of zoning. I don't have to point out the functions
of the Board and we have heard in that point of testimony from Mr. Penny he,'e,
and I can go over this, but I would like to say that in contradiction of all these
policies from the Town and of course the Town policies in protecting the wetlands
I think that the application for the subject property, with an 82 unit motel and
138 slip marina and 125 seat restaurant, a bar and accessory uses, including tennis
court and pool, I think this application must be viewed in the light of a spot zoning,
since the property alone in accordance with the surrounding properties would yield
three residential? There's a population density of about 12 people, rathe,'
than hundreds who would be expected to occupy this particular piece of propet'ty
in peak time. It's a part of the outrageous attempt to the intensified use of the
property to a degree that it destroys, of course, the values of the surrounding
wetlands and residential property. The applicant claims on page 65 of the Addendum,
the economic and feasibility of a marina alone. In my opinion as an appraiser, the
applicant uses ? a land residual approach, displays either a complete
ignorance of appraiser--techniques in general, or the economics of a marina ope,'ation.
particularly, or it presents an attempt to mislead all of us to the true value of the
subject property as currently improved. The land residual technique used is really
a quite simple and easily understood ? theory. A projection is made of the
properties gross income potential, estimated operating expenses are deducted, and
the net income remaining when properly capitalized represents the estimated value
of the property. The applicant opted to input $103,000 for debt service, leavinq
a net of $40,000. He then advances the Norvell appraisal theory that the $40,000
represents a return of five percent on debt. Well, the $40,000 net actually rep
resents a return to equity in the land. If he then capitalizes the figure at 4. 5c~,
the indicated land value is $320,000. This can be hardly considered confiscato,'y,
even using the applicant's figures, because he used the 12,.% interest rate. Now
let us attempt to shed a little bit light on this subject of the economics of the
marina operation. The applicant has disregarded many sources of potential income
and has, in my opinion, grossly overestimated the cost of a marina upgradinq.
think you have the report on hand. It is important that he predicates income
upon dry storage in that report, of 75 boats. Now let us resolve the question
of the high and dry storage. What does he mean? Is that winter storage? It
really doesn't explain it in this. Or is this an additional storage for 75 boats?
I f that is the case, then he really is expanding the marina operation, which he
said he wouldn't do, to about 213 boats, because if he wants to enlarge the
marina to 138 slips, and now uses the high and dry storage of additional 75
boats, means 213 boats. That is two and a half times the current capacity of
the boat marina as of yet. The applicant has stated on page 9 of this DE IS that
the existing marina uses and encompasses a majol'ity of upland. Obviously an
expansion of marina capacity necessitates the use of additional upland, and areas
despite claims to the contrary the areas of the setback from the water lines,
Page 17 - Southport .
.
mandated by the DEC, plus the required sideyards and setbacks, plus the 2.1
acres occupied by the tennis courts and pool, pursuant to a ? ,combines
the require area for marine operation, leave no upland area at all for motel and
restaurant use. The applicant professes the intent to operate a marina which
will reflect the state of industry standards. The applicant apparently doesn't
know that to operate the proper marina, current industry standards call for a
full-service marina. This ? the case in which the owner of larger boats,
which he is intending to put in 37 foot an average, the owners of these boats
just leave the keys in the fall time and expect their boat ready in the spring
in the water fully serviced. Morever, the marina space is in short supply, as
maintained by the applicant. Marina operators insist, and on their contracts,
including winter storage and the right to provide all repairs and services. It
is these latter items that make marinas profitable and they are singularly ignored
in the applicant's projection. This appraiser believes that the present use is a
profitable one of income and expense or estimated--if income and expense are
estimated realistically. Slip rental should be predicated upon an annual rate,
including winter storage. Essential services include winterization of engines,
water systems, air conditioners, hull painting and boat covering. A properly
operated and staffed marina catering to boats in the luxury range, must also
provide repairs, facilities for engines, hulls, as well as ? maintained, re-
model and upgrade vessels, install service, electronics, provide marine supplies,
fuel, ? ,brokerage and new boat sales are additional sources of revenues
not mentioned in the report. Also not noted that no projection of income has
been made by the applicant for the pool and the tennis club, complete with the
four courts. It should also be noted that in the Southold area many boat owners
have private docking facilities that require facilities for winter sto."age in the
winter time for their boats with ? maintenance. This is another other source
of revenues which no projection has been made for that. Even allowing for reason-
able operating expense and maintenance, it appeared--it is apparent that the value
of the subject property as presently improved is far closer to the owner's asking
price at that time when it was for sale of one and a half million dollars, then it
is to the Land Use Company's opinion that the property is virtually valueless as
currently operated, or as a negative value as is stated in their report. In closing
I would like to make a general statement. It is my opinion that it is the duty of
the Town to employ police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
residents. It should be concerned with water quality. avoidance of pollutions, and
uses which place an extraordinary demand on fire, police and emergency services
should be banned in general. It should be recognized that the Town is primarily
residential in character, and that marine recreational use is incidental to the use.
If these words, gentlemen, sound familiar to you, these are taken newly from your
newly promulgated floating home ordinance, and as employed herein applies equally
I think to marinas. The applicant's Addendum at page 59 states that a pumping
station will only reduce illegal dumping by vessels now using the basin. Well, an
increase of slips most certainly will increase the pollution again. And I wonder if
anybody here has considered the potential for firey catastrophy in having a large
number of boats filled with fuel in close proximity to a motel, with only a limited
means of access for fi re, police and evacuation. What chance of a rescue for people?
And all of the above--if all of the above may well be academic, in that that the
property's access is so inadequate even if it would be possible to improve the access
would be at an expense of the wetland, the freshwater wetlands and the salt water
wetlands. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? Sir.
~
Page 18 - Southport
CHARLES BOWMAN, President, Land Use Company: I know it's getting kind of
late and I certainly don't want to take too much more time, but I would like to
just point out a couple of facts--or at least respond to a few of the comments
that were made tonight. The staff of our company has spent a lot of time on
this project and we've made over twenty visits, and put in probably over fifty
man-hours on the site. I notice that Mr. Penny has been there twice. We have
done a shellfish survey. Mr. Penny has not done a shellfish survey. He stood
on the banks and he looked out. We have provided traffic information. Again.
Mr. Penny and his associates have stood in the road and looked there and made
their opinions based on what they saw. Shellfish do not migrate, as do some
waterfowl that we apparently missed, and I think that's pretty common. You go
there at different times of the year and you're going to see different species
coming through the area. The shellfish survey that we did do covered the area
and it was done with acceptable practices and we did not find any. Nor did we
find and shells, which would indicate that there were no standing crops of shell
fish in recent history. This is a fact. We have information to prove it. I don'l
think that Mr. Penny will say that he went out there and did his own shellfish
survey to refute that. I think that's important as far as our interpretation of
the shellfish resources on the site. Another point I'd like to bring out is that
it was mentioned that the core samples that we took of the sediments were grab
samples. That is not the case and it says in the Addendum and the sample
information that was provided that they were core samples. We did have the
analysis made. All that is of record. A statement was made that the DE IS said
that we were going to increase the availability of shellfish. I think that was a
misinterpretation. We certainly didn't say that because of the marina we were
going to get more shellfish. In fact, I think that what we did say is because
there was more people in the marina the demands on the shellfish resource, if
there were any, would increase because more people want to go out and pick
mussels and clams and oysters. Coliform counts that was pointed out that there
were some high coliform counts. That was in January. Those tests were conducted
by the DEC. It's interesting to note that the highest ones came from road run off
during peak rain time, and in fact one of the worst places in that whole basin '5
by Mr. Flynn's house where the road dead-ends there. I think it also should be;
noted that a lot of the opposition to this comes from canal by Mr. Flynn's
house. That canal was a subject of maintenance dredging permits in the past.
In fact our company secured those permits, and at that time the residents in
that area wanted that canal as deep as possible and they wanted to remove the
wetlands that were in there. We, of course, told them that that couldn't be done
and we had to just maintenance dredge. All these things contribute to what is
out there in the cove and I think we have provided a large amount of data on
actually what is there. A large amount of time has been spent. Let's see. The
wildlife--I think if we went out there every year, or every month during the yea"
we'd count a lot more species. Obviously that's not practical at this point in time.
I think the other main point is that this is an intensive use already. The site has
been disturbed. There is a swimming pool on the site already. Thel-e are tennis
courts on the site. There are marine--there are boats, there a'-e vessels there.
There's no pump-out station. We are upgrading an existing facility. That poin I
seems to be missing through a lot of this discussion. We're not putting in a new
marina. There is one there already and I think that's very important, because
the impacts on that cove are there, and the impacts go back historically. When we
did our bottom sampling--our shellfish sampling, the bottom is covered with bricks
from the brick factory--concrete rubble. All sorts of things, you know? But it
is not a pristine area by any stretch of the imagination and I think that the level
of use, while some--there will be more boats there, there will be more human
activity, also the mitigation factors that we built into the plan also will be upgraded
to make up for? The last comment I have as far as the potential uses thai
Page 19 - Southport .
.
we said were not compatible, I think we were talking about industrial uses, and
believe that's in the impact statment also. If there's any questions I'd be more
than happy to answer them for the Board. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address
the Board? John?
JOHN COSTELLO, Greenport: I'm in the marine contracting business locally for
the past twenty-five years. I'd like to just address a few comments on this
project. I'm not hired by anyone to be hereuLand Use, or Southport, or anyone
else. I'd like to offer some of my opinions. I personally believe this is one area
that can be developed over many, many areas in the Town. These needs are going
to increase in Southold Town. People are going to want more boats. The motels
we know we need. This is basically clay. We all know the history of that boat-
yard. It was a clay pit. Some of the fuel oil spills. This stuff is not going tOn
fuel oil doesn't permeate clay as it does sand or groundwater. The effluent. The
denitrification and what isn't handled by the denitrification system is again not
going to penetrate the clay and bother the groundwater down gradient of this
property. It's one of the better pieces of property in Southold to develop as a
marina. We all know that our standards over the past few yearsnor past ten--
constantly increase environmentally. We're all concerned with it. I am. I'm sure
everyone here is. This is one area that has an existing boat yard in it and I
know the site, it can be improved considerably. With the road run-offu- road run-
off is a problem everywhere in Southold and I'm sure it's going to be addressed.
Sewage. What they have there now is not as good as a denitrification system. The
Health Department is going to handle basically that part of it. I also think that
dredging that parcelnthat is a small area of water, small area of flow. It will
increase the productivity in that area. The flow in that area, without the bulkhead-
ing--and I don't see where anyone's advocating any bulkheadingnwith the natural
shore line accelerate the flow of water and if the entrance is dredged and there's
more circulation in there it will increase it. I don't know what the depth they
anticipate putting in there, but a six foot depth--and I'm sure Mr. Penny will
verify it--a six foot depth is most productive for fish habitats. Anything over
six foot loses some of that habitat ability to reproduce with small fish. The
coliforms--I guess we've heard of the road run-off, we've heard of the human
beings and sounds like a few people are advocating giving this back to the indians.
I'd like that too, but we all know it's not going to happen. The coliform--they've
had some problems in East Hampton Town, not that we have plenty of them here.
They exist where there's no people. They have a couple ponds where there's no
development around and there's coliforms. I'm sure Southold and every other
Town around is concerned about it and with the coliform count in this creek now
I'd think you'd be screaming to open up and dredge the entrance, get some more
circulation in there. I'm not so sure I'd eat the clams in there with the coliform
what it is. I think it's one of the better parcels in Southold. I know it's one
of the more expensive to develop as a marina, but it's one of the better parcels
and it's going to cause less pollution than many, many areas in Southold. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Anyone else like to add,"ess the Town
Board?
HOWARD ZEHNER: I'm the owner of Young's Boat Yard and Marina. Just two
comments really. The boat yard and marina occupies approximately 3.7 acres of
a 15 acre basin, so that represents a rather small portion. It comes out to about
24 percent of the basin. By all means it doesn't take up the majority of the basin
as some people have led to believe. The present docks, for economic reasons, were
Page 20 - South port
built on clay bars that existed before the basin flooded in the 20's and the watel~
came up over these bars and they're quite shallow and the fixed docks were built
out along these clay bars and the floating docks were off to the sides. Hence
the marina is layed out very inefficiently. They have large spaces between boats,
The docks were dictated by the clay bars, where we didn't have to drive very
deep pilings. In fact, Fred Young built these docks by hand. He drove the spiles
down with a sledge hammer on these fixed bars. But my point is that the ma,-ina
lends itself to expansion. There's enormous spaces between docks, and reasonable
expansion within this small area--this relatively small area of the basin, I feel will
not cause any environmental damage. I would also like to say that I've spoken to
quite a few of the property owners--not all of them--but property owners around
the basin, and many were contacted by Mr. Flynn to support his opposition to the
Southport DEIS. The property owners that I spoke to all refused to oppose the
DEIS, except, to my knowledge, Mr. Weisman. The boat yard and marina is owned
by myself, and Fred Young previously from 1950 to 1970, and the Sage Estate prior
to that, created the marina, owns the inlet, maintains the inlet, owns--has a big
land grant for this jetty, maintains the jetty with steel bulkheading, therefore, the
marina really exists--the basin, rather, exists and is maintained by the present and
previous owners. We do only have a minority interest through. We only own 3.7
acres--3.7 some odd acres of the 15 acre basin, yet we do, from all the property
owners, maintain the inlet presently and have spent considerable money for the
jetty and previous owners have, as I said, created the basin. Most of the property
owners do appreciate this situation, hence we've had limited opposition to this project
except as I before mentioned. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Howard. Anyone else like to address the Town
Board?
HENRY WEISMAN: Yes, Mr. Supervisor. My name is Henry Weisman, and I live
on the cove opposite Young's Marina, and I just wanted to comment on MI'. Bowman's
remarks that there are no shellfish in this water. There are bay men in the cove
regularly and they apparently earn their livelihood from that cove. We can obser've
them removing, per man, anywhere from two to three bushels of clams on tide. So
I can't possibly understand how they were unable to discover or locate any clams
in the cove, but I do recall Mr. Bowman being there on a weekend in January with
his little boat, and he apparently spent his time principally in the immediate vicinity
of the marina, but did not seem to travel around the cove. Anyone of you are
perfectly welcome to come down to my property, walk along the beach and pick up
whatever oysters you'd like, and I'm sure you'll find a few dozen of them in a matte.
of a very short time. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address
the Town Board?
MR. SHEA: I'd like to address the Board briefly again. I was just provided with
a document that I hope is on file with the Town Board. It's a letter dated April
1, 1986 from the State of New York, Department of State, by Larry Enoch, Environ
mental Analyst, in which he--he contends that he was essentially misquoted by the
applicant in the Addendum in the dredge spoil analysis for the Southport Development ~
Is that letter on file]
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes.
MR. SHEA: You do. All right. One other thing. This hearing is not designed
by law to record a show of hands concerning the project. If one person-u-one
.
Page 21 - Southport .
.
citizen comes forward to address the DEIS, those comments have to be considered.
The job of the applicant here was to prepare a legally adequate Draft Environmental
Impact Statement that meets the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act. We contend that that jOb's not been done. The Board should not be
concerned with whether one neighbor showed up, two neighbors, or a thousand
neighbors. The point is has the law beennhas the legal standard been met? We
contend it hasn't. We contend that one visit in the middle of the winter to check
the shellfish at a time when Mr. Penny says is the worst time of the year to do so,
is not an adequate data base for the analysis in this EIS. We contend that you
should have been providednwe should have been providednwith the drainage plan
so we could really assess the environmental impacts with respect to drainage. This
cove is used by baymen. Mr. Penny has confirmed that. I don't think that that
has been properly addressed by the applicant. There is lastly no comparison between
the existing use. It is disturbed. We acknowledge that the site is disturbed. But
there's no comparison between the existing use and the project as proposed. This
isnlet's be frank and candid--this is a significant expansion of the use of the site.
Eighty-two motel units and an expanded marina and a restaurant is a substantial
expansion of the use. By comparison the existing use is minimal. One last point.
One of the gentlemen who addressed the Board previously--I think this is the point
with respect to the impact of the contaminants described by Mr. Penny in this area.
One of the impacts--we're not concerned, necessarily, abouit these contaminants
getting into the cove and the permeating the bottom of the cove and getting into
groundwater. We're talking about the impacts of these contaminantsnthese pollutants,
on the water in the cove and on the benthic life in the cove--the cove's bottom. I
think that gentleman misunderstood the point and I wanted to make sure that the
Board was clear on that. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. BOWMAN: One very brief comment, because Mr. Shea did bring up Mr. Enoch's
letter. I believe--I spoke to Mr. Enoch today and I believe he called Mrs. Terry---
TOWN CLERK TERRY: He did. It's in the file.
MR. BOWMAN: --because that letter was written in error. He made a mistake in
interpreting the data, and we wanted to clarify that.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: We have a memo in the file.
TOWN CLERK TERRY: Everyone was given a copy of the memo.
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, anyone else? Yes.
MS. GORDON: At this close of this public hearing today of the SEQR proceeding,
we would first like to thank the Board for the time and energy expended in this
effort. Three hearings over a period of two months. And thank the Town generally
for its assistance. Unfortunately it's my responsibility to say that there has been
an exception to the generally professional manner in which the Town has conducted
itself, and we find it's necessary to take exception to the tone of the comments put
forwa,-d by the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council. We--our client will,
of course, respond to its comments, but I don't think that we can condone by silence
Page 22 - Southport
the rather abusive nature of the comments, to which our client was subjected.
As to the comments you've heard tonight by Mr. Penny and Mr. Bowman, I'm no.
going to try to address the points specifically. They're contained in the repot'ts
that you have and will review with your environmental consultant. I would point
out generally that many of the comments were directed at site specific. That is
chemicals to be used, where the denitrification system is to be located, and the
particulars of the design. As you know, what our client has applied for here is
a change of zone, which anticipates the change in the use proposed by this site
by the recently completed Town Master Plan, a result of fairly comprehensive
studies conducted by the Town's planning consultant. And again we point out
that some of the public comments would put the cart before the house. Southpon
has requested a change of zone. SEQR recommends a generic environmental impact
statement be completed in such cases. Southport has gone well beyond the generic
impact statement and has, in fact, given you information more specific than is even
necessary for the zoning change. Our client does appreciate the comments of the
governmental agencies and the interested general public which have helped make
this analysis more complete and have given it a high standard of environmental
review. Southport will of course respond to the additional comments in the Rnai
Environmental Impact Statement so that this Board, with it's environmental consultant.
can make the balancing analysis necessarynthat balance between social and economic
goals and environmental concerns. Thank you for your time.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else would like to
address the Town Board? (No response.) If not. we'll close this hearing.
Hearing adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
* * *
~~~$~y---
Judith T. Terry U
Southold Town Clerk
~
.
4Jp R '(
.986 ~CJ7J &~/Z
#%X-/M~~~
B.~~
~v~
RECEIVED
~*A"
\ ~~ -,.. ,'" ,
,;, ..
?j,:. , Ii
" .-.' ,
i\PR 41986
STATEOF NEW YORK
'To"'l' C!Qr<- 'iouthold DEPARTMENT OF ST A TE
ALBANY, N.Y. 12231
GMLSSHAFFER April 1, 1986
SECRETARY OF STATE
Ms. Judith Terry
Town Clerk
Town of South old
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
Re: F-85-455
Southport Development Corp.
Town of Southold
Dear Ms. Terry:
Mr. Barton asked that I review the document you submitted
entitled "Dredged Spoil Analysis for Southport Development".
This document should provide the information necessary to know
the nature of the proposed dredged material and therefore to
make decisions on acceptable disposal options. However, I have
found serious shortcomings:
1. On page six I am essentially misquoted. My statement
was that I had been unable to locate standards. stan-
dards set by E.P.A. do exist and I have since located
them. Upland disposal requires that E.P. toxicity
testing be performed, however, which is not the case
with this document.
2. The paragraph on the bottom of page six is incomplete.
The full wording is "In the absence of more definitive
knowledge on the pOllution effects of dredged material
or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredged
sediments at the disposal sites, the following physi-
cal and chemical parameters will be used to determine
whether biological testing of sediments will be called
for...". Thus, the decision making process may actu-
ally require an additional set of tests.
3. Although the proposed dredged material is presumed to
be Class I (page 10), I could find no data to back
this up. It is necessary to have proper data to com-
pare to the values in the table on page seven.
C:1Q~\ .i..i
Ms. Judith Terry
April!, 1986
Page 2
4. As stated on page 10, very minute quantities of
certain organic chemicals can render dredged material
contaminated; for example, 1 part per million (ppm)
of PCB. However, the test methods used were not sen-
sitive enough to measure such small values. In the
case of the PCB chemicals (Arochlor 1016-1260) the
minimum that could be measured was 40 ppm. Since
there are a total of seven Arochlors, the test materi-
al could be extremely contaminated yet not be shown as
such by the test. Even allowing for differences
between wet and dry weights, the situation is similar
for DDT and Dieldrin. Testing performed on proposed
dredged material should be in keeping with the stan-
dards to be met. When lppm of a chemical may reflect
contamination the testing must be sensitive enough to
show this.
In my judgement no decision on the suitability of the
subject material for a particular disposal means can be made
from this document. Additional testing and retesting of physi-
cal and chemical parameters are necessary. If you have any
questions you may call me at (516) 474-3642.
Sincerely,
Larry Enoch
Environmental Analyst
Coastal Management Program
LE:hm
cc: C. Hamilton - DEC Region I
W. Barton - Coastal Management Program
,
RECEIVED
.
· J?&~~1~-
MAR 2 6 1986
TWOMEY. LATHAM. SHEA & I{:ELLEY
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. 111
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 396
HIV'I~RHEAD. NEW Y()I~K 11901
10- C~ ow,uthold
516-727'2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. 11937
516-324-1200
AMY B. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM.
MAUREEN T. L1CCIONE
'ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
March 26, 1986
Ms. Judith Terry
Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum
of Southport Development
Dear r1s. Terry:
On behalf of Henry h'eismann and Frank Flynn, I
enclose herewith an original and five copies of their
comments on the DEIS Addendum of Southport Development
for the Town Board and Town planners review and
consideration.
~t:};1{;1
Christop~~/~elley
C K/mp
encs.
cc: Supervisor Murphy
David Emilita
c~~ f~,\r~
.j
i
\
. oj'
,
REcEJvm
MAR 2 6 1986
r_cw. ~I""""
;';::::'::';',
In the Matter of the Applicat'ion of
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
-----------------~-------~---------x
COMMENTS ON THE ADDENDUM TO THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS
HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN
March 25, 1986
(
\
\
CHRISTOPHER KELLEY
of Counsel
.
TWOMEY. LATHAM & SHEA
ATTOR NEYS AT L.AW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORI{ 11901
.
.
TO\'lN BOARD OF THE TOVIN OF SOUTH OLD
-----------------------------------x
In the /Iatter of the Application of
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
-----------------------------------x
COMMENTS ON THE ADDENDUM TO THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR SOUTH PORT DEVELOPMENT
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS
HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN
Henry \'Ie ismann and Frank Flynn res ide on Tarpon
Drive, in Southold, in close proximity to the proposed
Southport Development project in the Town of Southold.
On their behalf, we submitted comments on the original
draft environmental impact statement submitted by
Southport Development including technical analyses by
land-use planner, Frederick Reuter and environmental
analyst, Laurence Penny. We have reviewed the addendum
to the draft enviromental impact statement and enclose
our comments herein.
In general the responses of the
applicant in the addendum do not suffice to adequately
answer the questions of Szepatowski Associates, Inc.,
the Town Board's planning consultant, as they purport to
do, nor do they in any way attempt to respond to the
comments and questions raised by the intervenors and
their experts. The analysis, overall, between the
original DEIS and the addendum, remains faulty,
defective and insufficient as a matter of law on the
enumerated points. This conclusion is supported by the
comments of Frederick Reuter, landuse planner and
Laurence Penny, envirnonment analyst submitted herewith.
It is apparent from a review of the DEIS addendum
that the applicant is attempting to postpone
enviromental review on particular critical issues to
later stages of the process. However, SEQRA requires
that these issues must be addressed at the earliest
possible time. Applicant will undoubtedly argue at the
site plan and special permit stages of review that an
additional DEIS is not required. This reasoning is
circular in nature, if he is not required to <Jive a full
analysis of his project at this early stage.
A review of the addendum reveals that the applicant
has still failed to adequately address several maJor
issues raised by this project. A brief discussion of
these issues follows.
First, the applicant has ignored or avoided the
serious questions raised about the legality and prudence
of allowing three intensive uses of a very small site
-2-
.
.
based on a double and triple counting of the area of
uplands available for development. The calculations
used to determine the density of the motel and the area
available for parking are far out of touch with reality.
The overriding issue this development presents, as
set forth in the comments of the intervenors on the
original DEIS and again at the hamlet meeting on the
proposed master plan for the Town of Southold, is that
this proposed development is not consistent with the
character of the surrounding community and would
constitute a spot zoning. It is of a type and intensity
of use out of character with the surrounding residential
and open space qualities of this area of Southold. In
addition, the site is severely constrained by the unique
environmental features of the small but fertile and
relatively pristine embayment, which it abuts. A
marina, motel and restaurant of the size proposed cannot
be absorbed by such a small area and are more
appropriate for a site on an area with greater tidal
flushing and with neighboring related co~nercial uses.
Second, as stated in the original comments on the
DEIS, the alternatives section of the DEIS, what should
be the document's llheart and soulll is woefully weak and
inadequate to withstand judicial scrutiny.
-3-
Third, the economic justification for this project
is based on a study of tourism in the Nappa Valley in
California. Whether or not such a study is relevant is
subject to question. But assuming, arguendo, that it
is, the assumptions used by the applicant in applying
his economic analysis seem remote and far fetched. At
page 68 of the addendum, the applicant argues that the
motel will generate $2,000,000.00 in revenue for lodging
per year, which will generate $8,000,000.00 in spending
in Southold in a given year. The $2,000,000.00, figure
according to the analysis provided, does not include
restaurant, entertainment, retail purchases, gas or
automobile services but is limited to lodging. If we
take this $2,000,000.00 figure and divide it by 82
units it means that each unit would have to produce
$24,390.24 in income per year. To provide that type of
income, each unit would have to be filled 365 days per
year (a 100% occupancy rate) and rented at a rate of
$66.83 per night. Given the seasonal economy and the
motel rates in the area this would seem highly
unlikely. Thus, the projection of $8,000,000.00 in
spending is grossly exaggerated.
Fourth, this project is seriously limited by the
lack of adequate access to the site as pointed out by
Szepatowski Associates, Inc. and tIle various expe~t~
-4-
.
.
who have commented on this project including the office
of the Secretary of State. Access is controlled by a
neighboring property owner and is by a narrow right of
way. The ability to expand this right of way is highly
questionable given the proximity of wetlands and other
owners whose property would be effected. To date, no
satisfactory solution has been offered by the applicant
for the access problem.
fifth, conflicting statements are given in the DEIS
and addendum regarding the handling of runoff, effluent
and what use will be made of industrial chemicals used
in the marina and boat repair businesses. No data is
provided regarding the effectiveness of the proposed
dentrificaion system and no drainage plan has been
submitted.
Sixth, the applicant's vegetation and wildlife
analysis, based on a single day of observation in the
dead of winter is laughable and deficient on its face.
A point by point analysis of the DEIS addendum by
frederick Reuter and Laurence Penny, underscoring these
six major deficiencies and others, follows.
-5-
FREDERICK H. REUTER. AICP
Planning and Zoning Cansulranr
1030 Faresr Hill Rood
HendersonV1l!e. N.C 25739
(704) 692-7104
CO~l1.lENTS ON TI-lE ADDENDU~l 1D TI-lE CR"IIT
&'\lVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEI1ENI' FOR
SOUTHPORr DEVELOPllENT ffiTED FEBRW\RY 17, 1986
"late: All ~efe~ences roade he~ein to "Reute~ Study" are to
carnnents I submitted dated Janua~ 14, 1986 on the original DEIS.
In gene~al, the addendun supplied by the applicant does little to
remedy the insufficiencies of the o~iginal DEIS and ~ o~iginal
comments on that document remain applicable and pertinent.
Dated: t1arch 25, 1986
.
.
SECTION - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Comment No. 1 - Re Zoning
There is no legitimate basis for requesting a use variance
to permit a restaurant in the General Multiple Residence District.
The Master Plan Update Summary statement referred to is
incomplete. As reported in the Reuter Study, the last phrase of the
sentence quoted is " . . where they do not negatively impact on resi-
dential neighborhoods or the natural environment." The Reuter Study
also notes that Marine Recreation areas are ". . recommended for
locations along creeks that have suitable harbors, but less tidal
flushing than is possible in bay front or Sound front locations."
(Emphasis supplied) This clearly indicates that not all harbors
along creeks are suitable for such intensive development and that
tidal flushing is a matter of particular concern.
Southport harbor is not ". .in fact, on Southold Bay" and thete
is no indication that the harbor site does, in fact, have "extensive
tidal flushing."
In general this supplementary statement flip-flops between
Marine Recreation and Marine Commercial designations. \Vhether the
subject site clearly meets the criteria of either category is still
not substantiated. As pointed out in the Reuter Study neither category
is consistent with the goals and findings of the Master Plan Update
as they relate to the Conkling Peninsula.
All this aside, it may be true that the site is to be changed
to the proposed Marine Recreation designation. Motel and restaurant
uses would then become special exception uses subject both to certain
specific c~iteria and to the purposes of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
and environmental review.
As exa~ined jy the Reuter Study there is every evidence of this
site being over developed. This new information does not indicate
the assign~ent of site areas to the v~ious use elements.
The DElS still is without a satisfactory detailed description
Qf the proposed use or an adequate site plan as noted by the Reuter
Study.
- 2 -
SECTION - SU~~ARY
Comment No.3 - Re Fresh Water
Since the fresh water resource question is a dynamic one, it
would seem advisable to verify the resolution of nearly one year ago.
This question does not answer the issue of the private well.
pumping proposed on the subject site raised in the Reuter Study.
Comment No.4 - Re Boatyard Use
It should be noted that the proposed district does not permit
boat yards or storage yard in the Marine Recreation areas presumably
as a result of concern for adjacent property owners use in adjacent
districts.
Does the response with reference to winter storage mean that the
marina will not be in operation over the winter?
Comment No.5 - He Sanitary Effluent
This response does not deal with the comment's point about the
system removing only 30 percent of the nitrogen from the effluent.
It also assumes that the Suffolk County Department of Health
will find the site suitable and issue such a permit. As the Reuter
Study notes there is no information on subsoil conditions or the
depth to ground water as these factors might be related to sewa~e
disposal.
The very limited information on Exhibit C does little ~o
clarify the conditions surrounding the rudimentary indication of
the sewage disposal sys~ems elements.
- 3 -
.
.
SECTION - PUBLIC NEED FOR THE PROJECT
Comment No. 6 - Re Public Need
The response in this instance relies heavily on verbal communica-
tions rather than written statements. It also fails to respond to
a request for a municipal cost impact analysis.
With reference to the Reuter Study's questions, the response does
not describe the sponsor's objectives in terms of what distribution
of boat sizes he intends to serve or to what degree he will provide
berths for seasonal boaters as contrasted with transient boaters.
Will there be a boat launching ramp service? Further, no proof
is offered as to the need for the restaurant and motel as an accessory
use to the marina facility. Could they be located somewhere else
where there was more room, better road access and a less sensitive
environment?
In what way does this serve local residents?
The reference to boat and marine sales seems irrelevant unless
the sponsor proposes to operate a ships chandlery, a boat and marine
engine repair and sales facility or a boatyard on the site. Is this
the case?
With reference to Exhibit L, it is noted that the inquiry to
the Police Department apparently only concerned motel use of the site.
- 4 -
SECTION - LOCATION
Comment No.7 - Re Sage Boulevard
Although this response answers Comment No.7, it leaves
unanswered questions raised in the Reuter Study with reference to
the details surro\.ll1diI1g the traffic counts, the trip generation data
and the uses data on which it was based, some confusion about the
site's driveways, and the overriding question of the impact of
commercial traffic on a local residential street. With reference
to this latter point, there still is no description of the character
of the vehicles involved (e.g. boat trailers, etc.).
The question of marine access and traffic volumes is also un-
answered in this response.
Comment No.8 - Re Spills of Industrial Compounds
This response suggests that there will be no boatyard activity
or any boat and marine engine repair or sales facility on site.
Despite this the response to Comment No. 4 indicates that there will
be provision for Ile~ergency repairs I! and that thel'existing travel-lift
r...rill be utilized for potential winter storage and the occurances
requiring emergency haulage.1I Are there to be no industrial compounds
associated with these activities?
- 5 -
.
.
SECTION - MARINE CONSTRUCTION
Comment No. 9 - Re Dredge Spoil
The response in this case seems to answer the comment.
There is still no map information as to the location of the
channel.
Apparently the sponsor still proposes to remove 7,000 s.f. of
HM and IM areas with a very doubtful potential for creating
any new marsh from the grey clay found on the harbor bottom.
The use of grey clay for regrading the site, assuming no
contaminants, does not indicate a very beneficial condition with
respect to surface water drainage.
C08ment No. 10 - Re Boat Slips, etc.
The question of how small a small boat is still remains. If
~ survey where made of the state registrations of boats by boat length,
this could be demonstrated. As for meeting the market, it may well
prove true that those with 32 foot boats can afford more than those
with 22 foot boats.
The response does not locate the fuel facility or the pump-out
facility as requested.
- 6 -
SECTION - UPLAND DEVELOP~lENT
Comment No. 11 - Re Pervious Material
In this instance the response is essentially a repeat of Ule
question as an answer. No site plan with all drainage patterns, etc.
has been provided.
As the Reuter Study points out the DE IS provides no information
to substantiate the concept of a pervious material on a pervious soil.
Ponding on the site suggests that the soils may not be pervious. The
lack of graphics in general is not in accordance with the SEQR re-
quirements. In this case there is not topographic information avail-
able as well as no drainage pattern or plan. Exhibit A is illegible.
The nature of the common storm water management system questioned
in the Reuter Study is still unknown.
Comment No. 12 - Re Acequate Parking
The response to this comment indicates double counting of
the land area available for the various uses. The only upland area
set aside for the marina is one acre of parking, nothing else. No
land area is set aside fot the restaurant or its parking. As a resuJ."
the motel site becomes 338,~64 square feet in area and a unit yield
of 84.59 units is achieved. As the Reuter Study indicates the
sponsor has not provided land aLea for Ule Ulree distinct principal
uses.
Comment No. 13 - Re Peak Water Use
For the first ti~e this response reveals that the motel will
have efficiency units. Are these to be year-round units? Will they
be condominiumized?
We also learn for the first time that the restaurant will include
a 10 seat bar area. ~ill this be open year-round?
Did the traffic generation analysis take these same numbers int2
account? If so, where are the computations?
- 7 -
.
.
SECTION - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
Comment No. 14 - Re Subsoil Testing
The response to this comment indicates that the upland test bor-
ing results have been included with a map showing the sites of the
borings. Although the mapping is relatively legible the log of the
borings is completely illegible.
Reuter Study findings with reference to soil conditions are
still applicable.
- 8 -
SECTION - Th'VIRONMEl\'TAL SETTING. NATTJRAL RESOURCES, SOILS
Comment No. 15 - Soil Borings
See finding with reference to Comment No. 14 on borings and soils.
For any evaluation of this entire site of Made Land more borings
are going to be needed. Reuter Study findings are still applicable.
- 9 -
SECTION - SURFACE WATERS
Comment No. 17 - Water Quality Evidence Needed
This response refers to the subject "basiil areal! without
definition or mapping but refers to the velocities produced by
the "constriction encountered by tidal waters between Conklings
Point and Jennings Point (Shelter Island)." Such a statement
does not disclose much if anything about the conditions in the
harbor area of the subject site and its surface water quality.
Reuter Study questions related to surface water quality
remain unanswered~
- 11 -
.
.
SECTION - WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION
Comment No. 18 - Representative Species List
The response to this comment is to be reviewed by others.
- 12 -
.
.
SECTION - HUMAN RESOURCES - TRANSPORT AI ON
Comment No. 20 - USACE Naintenance Dredging Permit
The response in this case is a non-answer. Further the
permit papers do not inlcude any mapping.
Similar questions raised in the Reuter Study also remain un-
answered.
- 14 -
SECTION - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Comment No. 23 - Significa~t Environmental Impacts Section Needs
to be Re'tlri tten
Response with reference LO soils
information presented.
Beneficial impact of topography is not substantiated by the soil~
information presented.
Adverse impact related to groundwater does not recognize residua
nitrogen question by Emilita which went unanswered. The beneficial
impact regarding future pote:ltial for 1.ndustrial discharge j.s a "stra't,
man'l since any use which produced such a discharge would be subject L
is not substantiated by the so:l
a critical review.
In the case of surface waters the answer to the potential Cor
tidal flushing is still open to question. Amo~g the benet'icial impacLs
the potential for wetland biological filtration syste~ action seems
ve~y doubtful since wetlands are to be removed and the creatio~ of
new wetlands with dredge material appears to do~btful as well.
The findings wi~h re~ere~ce to wetlands above applies to the
response on vegetation as well. The temporary re~oval depends on
creating new wetlands which is doubtful.
In terms of transportation, the prospect of mixed commercial an~
residential traffic on a local residential street must be considered
an adverse impact with respect to thp quality o~ the ~ew residential
area.
Zaning and Land Use adverse impacts have been detailed in :tlC
Reuter Study. There are no beneficial impacts related to the
Conkling Point peninsulc? ,tJhic:h is a lo'tl densi -:J r8sidentiai ::>!:lOrel.i1i',C'
community. In the abstract the ~roject would provide marina facilitie~
and ;T;otel accor.1modations. ','ii t.h reference to Lle Coastal Management
Program it may be noted t.hat ~he site is in the most ~ragile Land
Capability Units III and IV over much of its area and the harbor i2
in Water Capability Unit I. The Land Use Plan - 1995 shows no expansJ.o.
of the existing use area or about half the subject site arCd.
nesponse with respect to community services is confused wlth tax
base discussion and other irrelvevant comments.
'0
.
.
SECTION - MITIGATION MEAASURES
Cc::::::ent No. 24 - Specific Mitigation Measnres
During the course of this review the practicallity of some of the
mi tigat.i.on measures i;:; questioned. The Reuter' Study fir.dings are still
2.r;;~i.cab12.
Co~r:;Ant No. 25 - Re Regrariing Plan
ln~ response is a ~on-answer.
Con:rnent No. ?6 - Be Fhagini tes
~ithout mapping this response has little mea~ing. Where does
this a~ply?
Ccr.,Ient N~. 21 - R'o Wetland Creati0n
This too is a ncn-answe!".
Comrre~t No. 28 - He Little Demand
T~is ~esponse has been covered 2arlier.
- 16 -
SS(~TION - ADVEHSE
ENVIRONt-1ENTAL E0'FSCTS T]A~ CAlE'JOT B2 AVrJIDEJ
Comment No. 29 - Re Adverse Impacts
This answer is not responsive.
- 17 -
.
.
SECTION - NO ACTION
Canment No. 30 - Document Economic Infeasibility
The response in this case provides a pro forma statement
on the feasibility of the marina as a stand-alone facility.
It finds that, with some value placed on the land, the annual
net return would be negative. This does not take into
account depreciation on the investment or interest on the
loan of funds borrowed. The response then proceeds to
suggest that it needs the applicants two other principal uses
to rrake a reasonable return. He does not, however, estimate
the net income and what the resultant return on investment
would be. Instead, he provides an estimate of the beneficial
economic impact on the Town.
The Reuter study finds that the entire discussion of
alternatives is obviously inadaquate and incomplete in terms
of the requirements of SEQRA.
COMMENTS ON THE AODENDUM OF THE SOUTH PORT DEIS FOR DEVELOPING
SAGE COVE PARCEL IN SOUTHOLD TOWN
Authored By Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant, 450 Sa9 Harbor, N.
March 25, 1986
(P. 3)
(P. 5 ,25-27)
(P.7 ,58)
.
.
The following comments address the concerns raised in the
DEIS for the proposed Southport Development change-of-zone project
at Sages Cove, Southold, in light of the materials contained in
the "Addendum" of February 17, 1986 and other file materials received
on this matter subsequent to the previous hearing.
1. r'1aster Plan Update Summary. With respect to compatible use,
namely ''\-Iater enhanced uses"... "for properties that front on bays
\'Ihere there is extensive tidal flushing," this project fronts on
a small cove or basin which does not have good flushing; the cove
stands to be greatly impacted should the project be approved.
2. Water Use. The 17,825 gpd is still a low estimate of the actual
water use for this project. It does not include water piped to boats
at berths, swimming pool filling and make-up, and underes:imates unit
use (especially inasmuch as these units are likely to become condo-
minium or cooperative units) and accessory uses(accessory lavatories,
irrigation, etc.). Nevertheless, the estimate provided by the con-
sultants suggests hook-up to the Greenport Sewage Treatment District
or treatment by a tertiary package treatment plant,as the water use
and design flow will clearly exceed 15,000 gpd.
Whereas the Greenport Water Authority is on record as having
water available for this project, you will note that the Authority's
\'Iater suppl ies are already qual ity and quantity stressed as
has been well advertised. It may be possible to provide potable water
to this project amounting to well more than 15,000 gpd during peak,
but we are notaj,l convinced that such \vould be in the interests of
sound planning anu according to a rational program of water resource
management.
3. Water Treatment/Effluents. The flow of effluent toward the cove
has been overlooked. The materials made part of the file to date indi-
cate that there may be more conductivity towards the cove than towards
the bay. The mounding effect (of 20,000 gpd or more during peak)of
effluent has not been considered; there are no test wells for elevations
of groundwater and gradient determination. Because of high groundwater
(P. 13)
(P. 15)
( P. 17 - 19)
Southport [' S/Addendum COii,!I!Cnts/Penny-?
conditions there may have to be a pump-up SystCllI vlhich vlOulo furl,,,
complicate the final design of the denitrification system proposeu.
The fate of virus particles and most chemicals that are soluble in
water or of very small molecule size and weinht, other than nitroGcn
products, is not elaborated. Such a system is not designed to treal
these. Ironically, the very springs which now enrich the coves tiddi
waters with freshwater and thereby serve to enhance flushing and conl~
inant dilution( while inhibiting shellfish predators and creatine
optimal salinities for the reproduction of shellfish) will serve In
entrain contaminated effluent and shunt it into the cove.
Access. The elaboration of Sage Boulevard and the road to the
site is necessary to this project and a pending subdivision partia'
surrounding this project's site. This elaboration will require the
of wetlands at several points in the R.O.W. of the road to be im~r
These wetlands l'lill be grectly diminished in value as \'Ii 11 those u,
connected to them.
Commercial Uses Vs. 1.1arina COl1lpl.~_~_Us..e~. The applicants continu2
"raise the flag" that theil" project is inherently less cheli!ical1;
polluting compared to possible commercial uses for the site. HoweV0'
the use of boat chemicals (e.g. tributyl tin, CCA, etc.). rcstaurac'
chemicals (bleaches, degreasers, pesticides), swimming poo' cnemll
(chlorinate salts, buffers, cleaners, algicides), motel chemicals "
pesticides, preservatives) and laundry chemicals (bleaches, detergerl<
sure to present as l1luch in the way of potentially harmful chemica
the basin and bay environment as many a vlell-designed, Ivell-miti"" (1
commercial use would.
Dredge/Dredge SpoiL The suitability of the cove!s sDoil fOl sit:
enrichment and stabilization is not at all derl10nstrated by the ir+"
provided based on bottom samples (4 bottom grabs). The mat2rlal IS
apparently very silty ilnd clayey (althouqh \'Ie arc yet to be pnJVi:J,~:
a particle size breakdown) and the sediment is relatively ric~ in -
metals (on the order of 5 to 10 times greater in concentretion tha~ a r
in bottom sediments of bus) marina basins in Lake Montauk. It .. ',Cl:>
(P. 20,21 )
(P. 22-25)
(P.29-33)
(P.34)
(P.35-37)
Southport DE.Addendum Corments/Penny-3 .
appropriate for marsh building, nor construction base, nor landscaping,
nor leaching substrate, nor other site use. In all probability the
only safe deposition of said material will be at the landfill or other
upland locus off site.
The dredging proposed (nav cut D1 half D1 volume) will not necessarilv
increase flushing throughout the basin. How it will effect bottom flow,
benthic water quality (dead spots, debris accu~ulation) has not been
addressed.
conveniently fall outside the
of the bounds of the expanded
The dredging of the channel area to
bounds of the parcel (and thus outside
marina facilities) may not be best for
water qual ity.
Marina Uses. The placement of a fuel dispensing facility so close to the
channel ( and main surface flow vector) would be foolhardy. The
accumulated pump-out station waste may not be compatible with the
scavenger waste treatment plant design requirements (it may kill the
cul tures ~).
channel maintenance and cove
Upland. The site will' be overdeveloped from the point of view of runoff
and associated coverage-dependent impacts (e.g. lighting, sound,
odors, etc.). These noxious impacts are not addressed.
Soils/Subsoils. Existing soil and subsoil evidence based on two cores
and mapped county soil units indicates more permeable soils located
downgradient from leach field site. There is a strong indication of
perched water on site which could play havoc with drainage and effluent
leaching (see, for example, the elevations of groundwater in the two
soil borings presented). The freshwater wetlands to the north
are apparently perched (see elevations on pending subdivision map).
Groundwater. No empirical grounds for statement re direction of
groundwater flow are presented. Quality of groundwater has not been
tested.
Surface "'later. Although a fe'o'/ col iform tests are provided (Harch
20, 1986, submission) they indicate off-season impacts, but do provide
an interesting baseline for comparing on-season inputs when they become
available. The site's surface waters will no doubt reflect much greater
"'o'/ettime" and "dry time" coliform values should the project be developed
as envisioned. The peak season impacts could be felt well seaward of
the cove. No tests of waters outside the cove in the bay have been
(37 plus)
pro'/ided. (:'lote ):1ed::,:;a~' :cc,"'NO:',; oJtt"ibutable to Redman of Dce on
page 35.)
\,ildl,ife,1\.n_~l.isl1_eriE's, Ihe "llC-il fish survey is entirely specioU'.:: .,..
done at the worst possible time of year. the methodology is suspec' "'
the results even more so. Obviously, no blue,cla\, crabs vlOuld be iuun
this time of year. If only 3 hard clams were found, hO\'1 is lt tn"
Southold baymen regularly remove hard clams from the cove? The nc' .
of benthic vegetation should also be disqualified on the same qrou.
Of course only small amounts would be found at this time of year.
The wildlife accounts are also flimsy, In my casual observation;
dates) found several species of \'Iaterfowl (e.g. greater scaup. 'h
breasted merganser, canvasback, etc.) not found in the addendum. 1"0
vlildlife value has bee.'l. seriously undorestirrated. It is hard to 3''',' "C'.
will be enhanced,as claimed by its proponents. by this very large
.
. ad/li/%1'~ y!ht~
~,p~yr
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
HOBART ROAD
SOUTHOLO, NEW YORK 1\971
516 -765 -2954
REaIVED.
MAR 2 5 1986
March 25, 1986
T_C"""~
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
Re: Southport Development
Dear Mrs. Terry:
We are in receipt of your letter of March 24, 1986
in regard to the dredge spoil analysis.
The dredge spoil analysis samples were taken at the
same time and at the same locations as the core
samples. A map showing the locations of the core
samples was included in the Addendum to Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement as Exhibit "G". This
fact should have been noted in our letter transmitting
the dredge spoil analysis.
We are attaching a copy of said map for your use in
identifying the locations of the dredge spoil analysis
samples.
Very truly yours,
~I :f;v:kJ1L fty)
~:~p~ Fischetti, Jr., P.E.
JF:mdh
Enc.
~11;~
.- .-
p~-
.
.
.
CQ"RE: SAMPLES : ~t.r;\UI) Foll.. ~OT/'t1'b1cr ~"EI.OPMENT
I I 1 '. ~"'\.~~~....... ,.,,...
~~~\ L
.~-~
"' 'I" os' '~~ ..
A "- 7Z" ?--.
" 0',.)
'.\ /' . c-ldiA.Pt )
~FFW:' uuHT'{ \w'$11l.CM
I ., ~P2",
<:rALF:1 ~~
.....
~ " '~ AI.; , I'"; ICO' -4
, "
R .....", ..
.. I" /CO
0
"
:~
,
~\
.
C
~ -
'h
N
I
I'
t-. -
,
TUF / h,,.... USE ej). WlIDIt-....\r_ ~\\JER NY. <'~ElI ~ I
.
.
, ~(:!'I~!)
~fu: Land 'l1:iE compan:;
N. COUNTRY RD. 8 BOX 361
WADING RIVER NY "79'
(SIb) 929-3575
-~ ,\ i' 0-::; -""\ r,""
:/""It'< :.::. ~J ':.:<..0
"n"," <:,,,.... "nuthoid
Town of Southold
TOI.m Clerk
Town Hall, 53095
Southold, N.Y.
Main Road
11971
Attn:
Ms. Judith Terry
Re: Southport Development, DEIS
Sediment Analysis
Dear Ms. Terry:
Enclosed please find a map showing whare the sediment samp-
ling stations are located at the proposed project site,
which was inadvertently left out with the original submission.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Very Truly Yours,
L II , ,}. /1,. LA--
,.,sL'-.- \...v'- J
Glenn E. Just
GEJ/to
Ene.
"
.
.
CCi"RE SAMPLES: l'iou',.\1<:.l2> F,,\.:.. ~DTlnb1cr "DEVELOPMENT
~ ~1\' ~- '-" Plm
J H' t
k'{ ~
"'-'';~ N
~ ' ,
. Lo::u:.
" 'II" 0'5' ''''''i ,...
A 1"- Tl.;p"--'" 0 /
" /' " C""klin. pt
~uFHu' .::.oUN"~ I-\~~
., MAP :Zb
'SLALE : I" ':. -~.
-"
" ':X AL.l~: )11: lCD' ~O"
R ", ."
" 0 J<O
"
,
,
C
- I -~ 1'\-
1\
N
I:
I!
r-- -
.....
T~E I ,1~b USE LLJ. W..6.l>INb. R\\JER N:Y. SI'\E.EiI OF I
.
..
RECEIVED
MAR 3 1 i986
*'
,
','. ../
- ,"-"
,Ij . )1
~ ' j
--....-
, '=^'-
IR 3 1 1986
cc:; ~~
fft:; ,- MV'
,'l/tcc:a& ~tV
.
Tow" n",.l, C;outhold
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF ST A TE
ALBANY, N.Y. 12231
C;AIL 5 SHAFFER
SEr=~ETARY OF STATE
March 25, 1986
Ms. Judith Terry
Town Cl e rk
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Mai n Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Terry:
The Department of State has reviewed the Addendum to Draft Environmental
~act Statement for Southport Development and would like to take this oppor-
tunity to outline our concerns regarding the development and protection of
coastal resources with respect to this project. Our comments are as follows:
1. This Addendum does not describe how the proposed zoning action and sub-
sequent development is consistent with the State's coastal policies.
As indicated in this Department's letter of December 27, 1985, the con-
sistency of this action with the applicable policies must be demonstrated
in the FEIS.
2. Due to the recent oil spill at the present onsite facility, what provisions
will be taken to protect the local groundwater system and tidal wetlands
from future leakages?
3. The results of the Traffic Survey were based upon June, 1984 conditions.
Peak tourist season traffic flows (i.e. for the months of July and August)
should also be considered in determining the potential impacts of the
proposed development on the existing roads and traffic conditions.
4. The Addendum states (p. 22) that "a common storm water management system"
will be utilized to achieve "O-runoff" conditions at the site. Because
of the site's existing soil conditions, the FEIS should contain a descrip-
tion of a system that would be appropriate for the project site.
5. The Addendum indicated that some boating services may be provided at the
site. The FE IS should describe which services will be available at the
proposed marina and where other necessary boating services may be obtained.
6. To minimize turbidity during dredging operations, the Department of State
recommends that clam shall bucket or hydraulic dredge methods be used rather
than a crane with a drag line (p. 18).
#"'J'~~
Ms. Judith Terry
March 25, 1986
Page 2
7. The dune enhancement program mentioned on page 55 of the Addendum should
be explained further, including the provisions which will be made (i.e.
elevated catwalks) to minimize human impact during dune crossings.
Please contact Mr. Aram Terchunian of this agency at (518) 474-3642 should
you have any questions on the above comments or need additional information.
Enc 1 os ures
WFB:KAC:dlb
cc: M. Greges, COE/NY Di stri ct
C. Hamilton, DEC/Region I
R. Musack, DEC/Region I
2.3.13
2.3.14
F'.B~
Resources Specialist
.
.
~au~~Y.~
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY. N.Y. 12231
GAIL S, SHAFFER
SECRETARY OF STATE
NEW YORK STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Sununary
The New York State Coastal Management Program (CMF) was approved pursuant
to Section 306 of the u.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, on September
30, 1982. Two State laws the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal
Resources Act (Article 42, Executive Law) and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Act (Article 34, Environmental Conservation Law) -- provided the State with
the additional new authorities needed to obtain this approval.
PROGRAM BENEFITS
New Yorkls eMF provides a number of benefits; one of these is Federal and
State consistency. The New York State Department of State, the responsible
eMP agency, reviews Federal actions affecting New York IS coastal area to
determine their consistency with the Program. At the State level, State
agencies are responsible for determining the consistency of their actions with
coastal policies and with approved local waterfront revitalization programs.
As a result, the activities of all government levels are procedurally
integrated to achieve the best use of coastal resources.
Other benefits of the CMP result from activities which:
encourage cooperation between public agencies and private interests to
achieve the best use of coastal resources;
assist local governments to develop a consensus on the best use of
their waterfronts and to implement local land and water use controls
through locally developed waterfront revitalization programs;
increase predictability of government actions for private developers;
serve as a stimulus for integrating all State agency review and permit
actions to expedite appropriate development;
protect significant fish and wildlife habitats; and
implement the Coastal Erosion Hazards Area Program, to minimize damage
caused by flooding and erosion.
2
COASTAL PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A nwnber of pervasive problems and opportunities were identified in the
coastal area during the six year preparation phase of the eMP. Inconsistent
decisions were made by government agencies regarding the use of coastal
resources. A need to establish a means for coordinating decisions made within
and between all government levels was identified.
New Yorkls urban waterfronts had deteriorated seriously due to changes in
transportation modes, failing infrastructure, population shifts, and others.
Strategies to promote waterfront revitalization were needed.
Habitats for New
at an alarming rate.
York's fish and wildlife resources were being destroyed
They needed to be identified and adequately protected.
Flooding and erosion were causing serious damage to the natural protective
areas of New York's coastline. A mechanism was needed to safeguard property
and to minimize damage.
Other problems and opportunities included the need to
dependent uses; to protect and/or enhance small harbors,
historic sites, and farmlands; to increase public access; and
makers with needed data on coastal resources and activities.
promote water
scenic areas,
provide decision
NEW YORK'S COASTAL POLICIES
To address New York I s coastal problems and opportunities, the Coastal
Management Program contains policy statements which either promote the
beneficial use of coastal resources, prevent their impairment, or deal with
major activities that substantially affect resources. Federal and State
agencies consider their actions in light of these policies. Local governments
provide specificity to these policies as part of their responsibilities when
preparing local waterfront revitalization programs.
A list of the subject of these policies is provided below.
A. Promote the Use of Coastal Resources
Revitalize underutilized waterfronts
Facilitate water dependent uses
Expand major ports
Expand commercial fishing
Expand public access and water related recreation
Develop coastal energy resources
Redevelop the existing built environment
Expedite permitting procedures
.
.
3
B. Protect Coastal Resources
Significant fish and wildlife habitats
Traditional character of small harbors
Historic and cultural resources
Exceptional scenic areas
Agricultural land
Dunes, beaches, barrier islands and other natural protective
features
Water and air resources
Wetlands
c. Major Activities
Siting energy facilities
Dredging for navigation, mining, and excavation in coastal waters
Managing solid waste
Ice management practices
Siting and building structures in erosion hazard areas
Some policies are derived from existing New
regulations. Others are based on Article 42 of the
Revitalization and Coastal Resources) and Article
Conservation Law (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas).
York State statutes and
Executive Law (Waterfront
34 of the Environmental
Policies detailed in Article 42 carry out the intent of the State
Legislature that there be "a balance between economic development and
preservation that will permit beneficial use of coastal resources while
preventing loss of living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open
space areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, impairment
of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems".
Policies on flooding and erosion are based on Article 42 of the
Environmental Conservation Law which provides for the identification of
coastal erosion hazard areas, including natural protective features.
Standards and criteria are prescribed for the regulation of the siting of
buildings and other structures in relation to those defined areas.
PUBLIC SECTOR ROLES
Several state agencies actively participate in the Coastal Management
Program. These include: the Departments of State, Environmental
Conservation, Commerce, Transportation; the Offices of Energy, Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation, General Services, Business Permits; and
the port authorities. Some of their many activities which affect the coastal
area include parkland acquisition, highway construction, administration of
funds for capital construction, regulation of energy facility siting, toxic
waste disposal regulation, freshwater and tidal wetlands regulation and
technical assistance to local governments.
4
The Department of State worked extensively with most
communities along the State's 3,200 mile coastline in developing
program. Realizing the potential benefit of the eMP, 107 local
are currently preparing local waterfront revitalization programs.
of the ~2 ~::' 5
the coastal
governmen-:.s
The Coastal Management Program serves a dual purpose -- as a coordinator
of existing State programs and activities which affect the coastal area and as
an advocate for specific coastal actions. The program promotes consideration
of the full range of economic, natural resource and social effects of
particular decisions and activities on the coastal area of the State.
October 1, 1984
.
.
.
New York State
Department of State
Coastal Management Program
STATE COASTAL POLICIES
Excerpted from the State of New York Coastal Management Program
and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 6, August 1982
.
.
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy 1 Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and
underutilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial,
cultural, recreational and other compatible uses.
Explanation of Policy
State and Federal agencies lIluSt ensure that their actions further the
revitalization of urban waterfront areas. The transfer and purchase of
property; the construction of a new office building, highway or park; the
provision of tax incentives to businesses; establishment of enterprise
zones, are all examples of governmental means for spurring economic growth.
When any such action, or similar action is proposed, it must be analyzed to
determine if the action would contribute to or adversely affect a
waterfront revitalization effort.
It must be recognized that revitalization of once dynamic waterfront areas
is one of the most effective means of encouraging economic gro..th in the
State, without consuming valuable open space outside of these waterfront
areas. Waterfront redevelopment is also one of the most effective means of
rejuvenating or at least stabilizing residentia! and commercial districts
adjacent to the redevelopment area.
In responding to this policy, several other policies must be considered:
(1) Uses requiring a location abutting the waterfront must be given
priority in any redevelopment effort. (Refer to Policy 2 for the means to
effectuate this priority). (2) As explained in Policy 5, one reason for
revitalizing previously dynarr,ic waterfront areas is that the costs for
providing basic services to such areas is frequently less than providing
new services to areas not previously developed. (3) The likelihood for
successfully simplifying permit procedures and easing certain requirements
(Policy 6) will be increased if a discrete area and not the entire urban
waterfront is the focus for this effort. In turn, ease in obtaining
permi ts should increase developers' interest to invest in these areas.
Further, once this concentrated effort has succeeded, stabilization and
revitalization of surrounding areas is more likely to OCCur.
Local governments through waterfront revitalization programs have the
primary responsibility for implementing this policy. Though local
waterfront revitalization programs need not be limited to redevelopment,
local governments are urged to identify areas as sui table for
redevelopment, and establish and enforce redevelopment programs.
1.
When a Federal or State action is proposed to take place
waterfront area regarded as sui table for development,
guidelines will be used:
in an urban
the following
a. Priority should be given to uses which are dependent on allocation
adjacent to the water;
b. The action should enhance existing and anticipated uses. For
example, a new highway should be designed and constructed so as to
serve the potential access needs for desirable industrial
development;
f--
c. The action should serve as a catalyst to private investment in the
areal
d. The action should improve the deteriorated condition of a site and,
at a minimum must not cause further deterioration. For example, a
building could not be abandoned without protecting it against
vandalism and/or structural decline,
e. The action must lead' to development which is compatible with the
character of the area, with consideration given to scale,
architectural style, density, and intensity of use,
f. The action should have the potential to improve the existing
economic base of the COllllllUnity, and, at a m1n1JllUlll, must not
jeopardize this base. For example, waterfront development meant to
serve consumer needs would be inappropriate in an area where no
increased consumer demands were expected and existing development
was already meeting demand,
g. The action should improve adjacent and upland views of the water,
and, at a minimum, must not affect these views in an insensitive
manner;
h. The action should have the potential to improve the potential for
multiple uses of the site,
2. If a State or Federal action is proposed to take place outside of a
given deteriorated, underutilized urban waterfront area suitable for
redevelopment, and is either within the relevant community or adjacent
coastal communities, the agency proposing the action must first
determine if it is feasible to take the action within the deteriorated,
underutilized urban waterfront area in question. If such an action is
feasible, the agency should give strong consideration to taking the
action in that area. If not feasible, the agency must take the
appropriate steps to ensure that the action does not cause further
deterioration of that area.
Policy 2 Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on
or adjacent to coastal waters.
Explanation of Policy
There is a finite amount of waterfront space suitable for development
purposes. Consequently, while the demand for any given piece of property
will fluctuate in response to varying economic and social conditions, on a
statewide basis the only reasonable expectation is that long-term demand
for waterfront space will intensify.
The traditional method of land allocation, i.e" the real estate market,
with or without local land use controls, offers little assurance that uses
which require waterfront sites will, in fact, have access to the State's
coastal waters. To ensure that such "water dependent" uses can continue to
be accommodated wi thin the State, State agencies will avoid undertaking,
funding, or approving non-water dependent uses when such uses would preempt
2
.
.
the reasonably foreseeable development of water dependent uses; furthermore
State agencies will utilize appropriate existing programs to encourage
water dependent activities.
The following uses and facilities are considered as water dependent:
1. Uses which depend on the utilization of resources found in coastal
waters (for example: fishing, mining of sand and gravel, mariculture
activities) ;
2. Recreational activities which depend on access to coastal waters (for
example: swimming, fishing, boating, wildlife viewing);
3. Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of goods (for example: docks,
loading areas, pipelines, short-term storage facilities);
4. Structures needed for navigational purposes (for example: locks, dams,
lighthouses) ;
5. Flood and erosion protection structures (for example: breakwaters,
bulkheads) ;
6. Facilities needed to store and service boats and ships (for example:
marinas, boat repair, boat construction yards);
7. Uses requiring large quantities of water for processing and cooling
purposes (for example: hydroelectric power plants, fish processing
plants, pumped storage power plants):
8. Uses that rely heavily on the waterborne transportation of raw
materials or products which are difficult to transport on land, thereby
making it critical that a site near to shipping facilities be obtained
(for example: coal export facilities, cement plants, quarries):
9.
Uses which operate under such severe time constraints
to shipping facilities becomes critical (for example:
perishable foods):
that proximity
firms processing
10. Scientific/educational activities which, by their nature, require
access to coastal waters (for example: certain meteorological and
oceanographic activities); and
11. Support facilities which are necessary for the successful functioning
or permitted water dependent uses (for example: parking lots, snack
bars, first aid stations, short-term storage facilities). Though these
uses must be near the given water dependent use they should, as much as
possible, be sited inland from the water dependent use rather than on
the shore.
In addition to water dependent uses, uses which are enhanced by a
waterfront location should be encouraged to locate along the shore, though
not at the expense of water dependent uses. A water-enhanced use is
defined as a use that has no critical dependence on obtaining a waterfront
location, but the profitability of the use and/or the enjoyment level of
the users would be increased significantly if the use were adjacent to, or
3
had visual access to, the waterfront. A restaurant
design to take advantage of a waterfront view, and
incorporates the coastline into the course design,
water-enhanced uses.
which uses good site
a golf course which
are two examples of
If there is no immediate demand for a water dependent use in a given area
but a future demand is reasonably foreseeable, temporary non-water
dependent uses should be considered preferable to a non-water dependent use
which involves an irreversible, or nearly irreversible commitment of land.
Parking lots, passive recreational facilities, outdoor storage areas, and
nonpermanent structures are uses or facilities which would likely be
considered as "temporary" non-water dependent uses.
In the actual choice of sites where water dependent uses will be encouraged
and facilitated, the following guidelines should be used.
1. Competition for space -- competition for space or the potential for it,
should be indicated before any given site is promoted for water
dependent uses. The intent is to match water dependent uses 1011 th
suitable locations and thereby reduce any conflicts between competing
uses that might arise. Not just any site suitable for development
should be chosen as a water dependent use area. The choice of a site
should be made with some meaningful impact on the real estate market
anticipated. The anticipated impact could either be one of increased
protection to existing water dependent activities or else the
encouragement of water dependent development.
2. In-place facilities and services -- most water dependent uses, if they
are to function effectively, will require basic public facilities and
services. In selecting appropriate areas for water dependent uses,
consideration should be given to the following factors:
a. The availability of public sewers, public water lines and adequate
power supply;
b. Access to the area for trucks and rail, if heavy industry is to be
accommodated; and
c. Access to public transportation, if a high number of person trips
to to be generated.
3. Access to navigational channels -- if commercial shipping, commerc~al
fishing, or recreational boating are planned, the locality should
consider setting aside a site, within a sheltered harbor, from which
access to adequately sized navigation channels would be assured.
4. Compatibility with adjacent uses and the protection of other coastal
resources water dependent uses should be located so that they
enhance, or at least do not detract from, the surrounding community.
Consideration should also be given to such factors as the protection of
nearby residential areas from odors, noise and traffic. Affirmative
approaches should also be employed so that water dependent uses and
adjacent uses can serve to complement one another. For example, a
recreation-oriented water dependent use area could be sited in an area
4
.
.
already oriented towards tourism. Clearly, a marina, fishing pier or
swimming area would enhance, and in turn be enhanced by, neamy
restaurants, motels and other non-water oriented tourist activities.
Water dependent uses must also be sited so as to avoid adverse impacts
on the significant coastal resources.
5. Preference to underutilized sites -- the promotion of water dependent
uses should serve to foster development as a result of the capital
programming, permit expediting, and other State and local actions that
will be used to promote the site. Nowhere is such a stimulus needed
more than in those portions of the State's waterfront areas which are
currently underutilized.
6. Providing for expansion -- a primary objective of the policy is to
create a process by which water dependent uses can be accommodated well
into the future. State agencies and localities should therefore give
consideration to long-term space needs and, where practicable,
accommodate future demand by identifying more land than is needed in
the near future.
In promoting water dependent uses the following kinds of actions should be
considered:
1. Favored treatment to water dependent use areas with respect to capital
programming. Particular priority should be given to the construction
and maintenance of port facilities, roads, railroad facilities, and
public transportation within areas suitable for water dependent uses.
2. When areas suitable for water dependent uses are publicly owned,
favored leasing arrangements should be given to water dependent uses.
3. Where possible, consideration should be given to providing water
dependent uses with property tax abatements, loan guarantees, or loans
at below market rates.
4. State and local planning and economic development agencies should
actively promote water dependent uses. In addition, a list of sites
available for non-water dependent uses should be maintained in order to
assist developers seeking alternative sites for their proposed
projects.
5. Local, State and Federal agencies should work together to streamline
permitting procedures that may be burdensome to water dependent uses.
This effort should begin for specific uses in a particular area.
6. Local land use controls, especially the use of zoning districts
exclusively for waterfront uses, can be an effective tool of local
government in assuring adequate space for the development of water
dependent uses.
5
Policy 3 Further develop the State's major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New
York, Ogdensburg and Oswego as centers of commerce and industry,
and encourage the siting, in these port areas, including those
under the jurisdiction of State public authorities, of land use
and development which is essential to or in support of the
waterborne transportation of cargo and people.
Explanation of Policy
The aim of this policy is to support port development in New York, Albany.
Buffalo, Ogdensburg and Oswego. Three other development policies,
discussed in this Section, have significant implications for port
development, namely: water dependency, concentration of development, and
the expediting of permit reviews. In implementing this policy, state
agencies will recognize the legally-established jurisdictional boundaries
of the port authorities. If an action is proposed for a site within or
abutting a major port, or if there is a reasonable expectation that a
proposed action elsewhere would have an impact on a major port, then the
following guidelines shall be used in determining consistency:
1. In assessing proposed projects within or abutting a major port, given
that all other applicable policies are adhered to, the overriding
consideration is the maintenance and enhancement of port activity.
i.e., development related to waterborne transportation, which will have
precedence over other, non-port related activities.
2. Dredging to maintain the economic viability of major ports will be
regarded as an action of regional or statewide public benefit if: a
clear need is shown for maintaining or improving the established
alignment, width, and depth of existing channels or for new channels
essential to port activity; and, it can be demonstrated that
environmental impacts would be acceptable according to State
regulations governing the activity.
3. Landfill projects in the near-shore areas will be regarded as an
acceptable acti vi ty wi thin maj or port areas, provided adverse
environmental impacts are acceptable under all applicable environmental
regulation and a strong economic justification is demonstrated.
4. If non-port related activities are proposed to be located in or near to
a major port, these uses shall be sited so as not to interfere with
normal port operations.
5. When not already restricted by existing laws or covenants. and when
there is no other overriding regional or statewide public benefit for
doing otherwise, surplus public land or facilities within or adjacent
to a major port shall be offered for sale, in the first instance, to
the appropriate port authority.
6. In the programming of capital projects for port areas, highest priority
will be given to projects that promote the development and use of the
port. However, in determining such priorities, consideration must also
be given to non-port related interests within or near the ports that
have demonstrated critical capital programming needs.
6
.
.
7. No buildings, piers, wharves, or vessels shall be abandoned or
otherwise left unused by a public agency or sold without making
provisions for their maintenance in sound condition or for their
demolition or removal.
8. Proposals for the development of new major ports will be assessed in
terms of the anticipated impact on: a) existing New York State major
ports; b) existing modes of transportation; and c) the surrounding land
uses and overall neighborhood character of the area in which the
proposed port is to be lotated; and other valued coastal resources.
9. Port development shall provide opportunities for public access insofar
as these opportunities do not interfere with the day-to-day operations
of the port and the port authority and its tenants do not incur
unreasonable costs.
Policy 4 Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by
encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional
uses and acti vi ties which have provided such areas with their
unique maritime identity.
Explanation of Policy
This policy recognizes that the traditional activities occurring in and
around numerous smaller harbors throughout the State's coastal area
contribute much to the economic strength and attractiveness of these harbor
communi ties. Thus, efforts of State agencies shall center on promoting
such desirable activities as recreational and commercial fishing, ferry
services, marinas, historic preservation, cultural pursuits, and other
compatible activities which have made smaller harbor areas appealing as
tourist destinations and as commercial and residential areas. Particular
consideration will be given to the visual appeal and social benefits of
smaller harbors which, in turn, can make significant contribut~ons to the
State's tourism industry.
The following guidelines shall be used in determining consistency:
1. The action shall give priority to those traditional and/or desired uses
which are dependent on or enhanced by a location adjacent to the water.
2. The action will enhance or not detract from or adversely effect
existing traditional and/or desired anticipated uses.
3. The action shall not be out of character with, nor lead to development
which would be out of character with, existing development in terms of
the area's scale, intensity of use, and architectural style.
4. The action must not cause a site to deteriorate, e.g., a structure
shall not be abandoned without protecting it against vandalism and/or
structural decline.
7
5. The action will not adversely affect the existing economic base of the
community, e.g., waterfront development designed to promote residential
development might be inappropriate in a harbor area where the economy
is dependent upon tourism and commercial fishing.
6. The action will not detract from views of the water and smaller harbor
area, particularly where the visual quality of the area is an important
component of the area's appeal and identity.
Policy 5
Encourage
services
adequate.
the location of development in areas where public
and facilities essential to such development
are
Explanation of Policy
By its construction, taxing, funding and regulatory powers, government has
become a dominant force in shaping the course of development. Through
these governments actions, development, particularly large-scale
development, in the Coastal Area will be encouraged to locate within.
contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing areas of concentrated
development where infrastructure and public services are adequate, where
topography, geology, and other environmental conditions are suitable for
and able to accommodate development.
The above policy is intended to accomplish the following:
strengthen existing residential, industrial and commercial centers;
foster an orderly pattern of growth where outward expansion ,s
occurring;
increase the productivity of existing public services and moderate the
need to provide new public services in outlying areas;
preserve open space in sufficient amounts; and
where desirable, foster energy
between encouraging proximity
activities.
conservation by encouraging proxirr.i t.y
between home, .....ork, and leisure
For any action that would result in large scale development or an action
which would facilitate or serve future development, determination shall be
made as to whether the action is within, contiguous to, or in close
proximi ty to an area of concentrated development where infrastructure and
public services are adequate. The following guidelines shall be used i,;
making that determination.
1~ Cities, built-up suburban towns and villages, and rural villases in the
coastal area are generally areas of concentrated development where
infrastructure and public services are adequate.
8
.
.
2. other locations in the coastal area may also be suitable for
development, if three or more of the following conditions prevail:
a. Population density of the area surrounding or adjacent to the
proposed site exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile;
b. Fewer than 50\ of the buildable sites (i.e., sites meeting lot area
requirements under existing local zoning regulations) within one
mile radius of the prOposed site are vacant;
c. Proposed site is served by or is near to public or private sewer
and water lines;
d. Public transportation service is available within one mile of the
proposed site; and
e. A significant concentration of commercial and/or industrial
activity is within one-half mile of the proposed site.
3. The following points shall be considered in assessing the adequacy of
an area's infrastructure and public services:
a.
Streets and highways serving the
accommodate the peak traffic
developnent;
proposed site can safely
generated by the proposed
la,.,d
b. Development's water needs (consumptive and fire fighting) can be
met by the existing water supply system;
c. Sewage disposal system can accommodate the wastes generated
by the development;
d. Energy needs of the proposed land development can be accommodated
by existing utility systems;
e. Stormwater runoff from the proposed site can be accommodated by
on-site and/or off-site faCilities; and
f. Schools, police and fire protection, and health and social
services are adequate to meet the needs of the population expected
to live, work, shop, or conduct business in the area as a result of
the development.
It is recognized that certain forms of development may and/or should occur
at locations which are not within or near areas of concentrated
development. Thus, this coastal development policy does not apply to the
following types of development projects and activities.
1. Economic activities which depend upon sites at or near locations where
natural resources are present, e.g., lumber industry, quarries.
2. Development which by its nature is enhanced by a non-urbanized setting,
e.g., a resort complex, campgrounds, second home developments.
9
3. Development which is designed to be a self-contained activity, e.g., a
small college, an academic or religious retreat.
4. Water dependent uses with site requirements not compatible with this
policy or when alternative sites are not available.
5.
Development which because of
little or no potential to
development.
its isolated location and small-scale has
generate and/or encourage further land
6. Uses and/or activities which because of public safety consideration
should be located away from populous areas.
7. Rehabilitation or restoration of existing structures and facilities.
B. Development projects which are essential to the construction and/or
operation of the above uses and activities.
In certain urban areas where development is encouraged by this policy, the
condition of existing public water and sewage infrastructure may
necessitate improvements. Those State and Federal agencies charged with
allocating funds for investments in water and sewer facilities should give
high priority to the needs of such urban areas so that full advantage maybe
taken of the rich array of their other infrastructure components in
promoting waterfront revitalization.
Policy 6 Expedite permit procedures in order to facilitate the siting of
development activities at suitable locations.
Explanation of policy
For specific types of development activities and in areas suitable for such
development, State agencies and local governments participating in the
waterfront Revitalization program will make every effort to coordinate and
synchronize existing permit procedures and regulatory programs, as long as
the integrity of the regulations' objectives is not jeopardized. These
procedures and programs will be coordinated within each agency. Also,
efforts will be made to ensure that each agency's procedures and programs
are synchronized with other agencies' procedures at each level of
government. Finally, regulatory programs and procedures will be
coordinated and synchronized between levels of government, and if
necessary. legislative and/or programmatic changes will be recommended.
When proposing new regulations, an agency will determine the feasibility of
incorporating the regulations wi thin existing procedures, if this reduces
the burden on a particular type of development and will not jeopardize the
integrity of the regulations' objectives.
10
.
.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICIES
Policy 7 Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected,
preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain their
viability as habitats.
Explanation of Policy
Habitat protection is recognized as fundamental to assuring the survival of
fish and wildlife populations. Certain habitats are particularly critical
to the maintenance of a given population and therefore merit special
protection. Such habitats exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics: (1) are essential to the survival of a large portion of a
particular fish or wildlife population (e.g., feeding grounds, nursery
areas), (2) support populations of rare and endangered species; (3) are
found at a very low frequency within a coastal region; (4) support fish and
wildlife populations having significant commercial and/or recreational
value, and (5) would be difficult or impossible to replace.
In order to protect and preserve a significant habitat, land and water uses
or development shall not be undertaken if such actions destroy or
significantly impair the viability of an area as a habitat. When the
action significantly reduces a vital resource (e.g., food, shelter, living
space) or changes environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate,
salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism, then the action would
be considered to "significantly impair" the habitat. Indicators of a
significantly impaired habitat may include: reduced carrying capacity,
changes in community structure (food chain relationships, species
diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and
mortality.
The range of generic activities most likely to affect significant coastal
fish and wildlife habitats include but are not limited to the following:
1. Draining wetlands, ponds: Cause changes in vegetation, or changes in
groundwater and surface water hydrology.
2. Filling wetlands, shallow areas of streams, lakes, bays, estuaries:
May change physical character of substrate (e.g., sandy to muddy, or
smother vegetation, alter surface water hydrology).
3. Grading land: Results in vegetation removal, increased surface runoff,
or increase soil erosion and downstream sedimentation.
4.
Clear cutting: May cause loss of vegetative cover,
fluctuations in amount of surface runoff, or
scouring, soil erosion, sediment deposition.
increase
increase
streambed
5. Dredging or excavation: May cause change in substrate composition,
possible release of contaminants otherwise stored in sediments, removal
of aquatic vegetation, or change circulation patterns and sediment
transport mechanisms.
11
6. Dredge spoil disposal: May induce shoaling of littoral areas, or
change circulation patterns.
7. Physical alteration of shore areas through channelization or
construction of shore structure: May change volume and rate of flow or
increased scouring, sedimentation.
8. Introduction, storage or disposal of pollutants such as chemical,
petrochemical, solid wastes, nuclear wastes, toxic material pesticide,
sewage effluent, urban and rural runoff, leachate of hazardous and
toxic substances stored in landfills: May cause increased mortality or
sublethal effects on organisms, alter their reproductive capabilities,
or reduce their value as food organisms.
The range of physical, biological and chemical parameters which should be
considered include but are not limited to the following:
1. Physical parameters such as: Living space, circulation, flushing
rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (loss of
littoral zone), morphology, substrate type, vegetation, structure,
erosion and sedimentation rates.
2. Biological parameters such as: Community structure, food chain
relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relatio~ships.
population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, behavioral
patterns, and migratory patterns.
3. Chemical parameters such as: Dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, ph,
dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, pollutants (heavy
metals, toxic and hazardous materialS).
When a proposed action is likely to alter any of the biological, physical
or chemical parameters as described in the narrative beyond the tolerance
range of the organisms occupying the habitat, the viability of that habit3t
has been significantly impaired or destroyed. Such action, therefore.
would be inconsistent with the above policy.
In cooperation with the State's Coastal Management program, the Department
of Environmental Conservation has developed a rating system incorporating
these five parameters (The Development and Evaluation of a System for
Rating Fish and wildlife Habitats in the Coastal Zone of New York State
Final Report, January 1981, 15 pp.)
TO further aid Federal and State agencies in determining the consistency of
a proposed action with this policy, a narrative will be prepared for each
significant habitat which will: (l) identify the location of the habitat,
(2) describe the community of organisms which utilize the habitat, (3)
identify the biological, physical and chemical parameters which should be
considered when assessing the potential impacts of a project on that
habitat: (4) identify generic activities which would most likely create
significant impacts on the habitat: and (S) provide the quantitive basis
used to rate the habitat. Prior to formal designation of signif>cant fish
and wildlife habitats, copies of the individual habitat narratives plus
copies of habitat maps and completed rating forms will be prov>ded to
Federal and State agencies and the public for the review and comme~t.
12
.
.
Policy 8
Protect fish and wildlife resources
introduction of hazardous wastes
bio-accUlllulate in the food chain
sublethal or lethal effect on those
in the coastal area from the
and other pollutants which
or which cause significant
resources.
Explanation of Policy
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes and
are generally characterized ,as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or
toxic. More specifically, waste is defined in Environmental Conservation
Law [S27-090l(3)] as "waste or combination of wastes which because of its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious charactertics
may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness;
or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or otherwise
managed." A list of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part 366) will be adopted by
DEC within 6 months after EPA formally adopts its list.
The handling (storage, transport, treatment and disposal) of the materials
included on this list is being strictly regulated in Ne.' York State to
prevent their entry or introduction into the environment, particularly into
the State's air, land and waters. Such controls should effectively
minimize possible contamination of and bio-accumulation in the State's
coastal fish and wildlife resources at levels that cause mortality or
create physiological and behavioral disorders.
Other pollutants are those conventional wastes, generated from point and
non-point sources, and not identified as hazardous wastes but controlled
through other States laws.
Policy 9 Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in
coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources,
supplementing existing stocks, and developing ne. resources.
Explanation of Policy
Recreational uses of
consumptive uses such as
as wildlife photography,
coastal fish and wildlife resources include
fishing and hunting, and non-consumptive uses such
bird watching and nature study.
Any efforts to increase recreational use of these resources will be made in
a manner which ensures the protection of fish and wildlife resources in
marine and freshwater coastal areas and which takes into consideration
other activities dependent on these resources. Also, such efforts must be
done in accordance with existing State law and in keeping with sound
resource management considerations. Such considerations include biology of
the species, carrying capacity of the resource, public demand, costs and
available technology.
13
The following additional guidelines should be considered by State and
Federal agencies as they determine the consistency of their proposed action
with the above pOlicy.
1. Consideration should be made by Federal and State agencies as to
whether an action will iJnpede existing or future utilization of the
State's recreational fish and wildlife resources.
2. Efforts to increase access to recreational fish and wildlife resources
.should not lead to overutilization of that resource or cause impairment
of the habitat. SometiJnes such impairment can be more subtle than
actual physical damage to the habitat. For eXa1l\ple, increased hUll\an
presence can deter animals from using the habitat area.
3. The impacts of increasing access to recreational fish and wildlife
resources should be determined on a case-by-case basis, consulting the
significant habitat narrative (see Policy 7) and/or conferr,ng with a
trained fish and wildlife biologist.
4. Any public or private sector initiatives to supplement existing stocks
(e.g., stocking a stream with fish reared in a hatchery) or develop new
resources (e.g., creating private fee-hunting or fee-fishing
facilities) must be done in accord with existing State law.
Policy 10
Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish and crustacean
resources in the coastal area by encouraging the construction
of new, or improvement of existing on-shore commercial fishing
facilities, increasing marketing of the State I 5 seafood
products, maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding
aquaculture facilities.
Explanation of Policy
Commercial fishery development activities must occur within the context c:
sound fishery management principals developed and enforced within the
State's waters by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Management Plans developed by the Regional Fisheries
Management Councils (Mid-Atlantic and New England) and enforced by the U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service within the Fishery Conservation Zone.
(The Fishery Conservation Zone is the area of coastal waters extending from
the three mile State waters boundary to the 200 mile offshore boundary of
U.S. Waters. The Conservation Zone is authorized by the U.S. Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976.) Sound resource management
considerations would include optimum sustained yield levels developed for
specific commercial fish species, harvest restrictions imposed by State and
Federal governments, and the economic, political (uses conflicts) and
technological constraints to utilizing these resources.
14
.
.
The following additional guidelines should be considered by State and
Federal agencies as they determine the consistency of their proposed action
with the above policy:
1. A public agency's commercial fishing development initiative should not
preempt or displace private sector initiative.
2. A public agency's efforts to expand existing or create new on-shore
commercial fishing support facilities should be directed towards unmet
development needs rather than merely displacing existing commercial
fishing activities from a nearby port. This may be accomplished by
taking into consideration existing State or regional commercial fishing
development plans.
3. Consideration should be made by State and Federal agencies whether an
action will impede existing utilization or future development of the
state's commercial fishing resources.
4. Commercial fishing development efforts should be made in a manner which
ensures the maintenance and protection of the renewable fishery
resources.
FLOODING AND EROSION POLICIES
Policy 11
Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal
area so as to mini.Jr.ize damage to property and the endangering
of human lives caused by flooding and erosion.
Explanation of Policy
On coastal lands identified as coastal erosion hazard areas, buildings and
similar structures shall be set back from the shoreline a distance
sufficient to minimize damage from erosion unless no reasonable prudent
alternative site is available as in the case of piers, docks and other
structures necessary to gain access to coastal waters to be able to
function. The extent of the setback will be calculated, taking into
account the rate at which land is receding due to erosion, and the
protection provided by existing erosion protection structures as well as by
natural protective features such as beaches, sandbars, spits, shoals,
barrier islands, bay barriers, nearshore areas, bluffs and wetlands. The
only new structure allowed in coastal erosion hazard areas is a moveable
structure as defined in Section 505.3(u) of the regulations for EeL,
Article 34. Prior to its construction, an erosion hazard areas permit must
be approved for the structure. Existing, non-conforming structures located
in coastal erosion hazard areas may be only minimally enlarged.
In coastal lands identified as being subject to high velocity waters caused
by hurricane or other storm wave wash - a coastal high hazard area - walled
and roofed buildings or fuel storage tanks shall be sited landward of mean
high tide; and no mobile home shall be sited in such area. In coastal
lands identified as floodways, no mobile homes shall be sited other than in
existing mobile home parks.
Where human lives may be
emergency preparedness
preparedness planning.
endangered by major coastal storms, all necessary
measures should be taken, including disaster
15
Policy 12 Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken
so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from
flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features
including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs.
Explanation of policy
Beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs, and other natural protective
features help safeguard coast&l lands and property from damage, as well as
reduce the danger to human life, resulting from flooding and erosion.
Excavation of coastal features, imProperly designed structures, inadequate
site planning, or other similar actions which fail to recognize their
fragile nature and high protective values, lead to the weakening or
destruction of those landforms. Activities or development in, or in
proximity to, natural protective features must ensure that all such adverse
effects are minimized. Primary dunes will be protected from all
encroachments that could impair their natural protective capacity.
Policy 13 The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection
structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable
probability of controlling erosion for at least thirty years as
demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured
maintenance or replacement programs.
Explanation of Policy
Erosion protection structures are widely used throughout the State's coastal
area. However, because of improper design, construction and maintenance
standards, many fail to give the protection which they are presumed to
provide. AS a result, development is sited in areas where it is subject to
damage or loss due to erosion. This policy will help ensure the reduction
of such damage or loss.
Policy 14 Activities and development including the construction or
reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be
undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in
erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or
development, or at other locations.
Explanation of Policy
Erosion and flooding are processes which occur naturally. However, by his
actions, man can increase the severity and adverse effects of those
processes, causing damage to, or loss of property, and endangering human
Ii ves. Those actions include: the use of erosion protection structures
such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks which block the Ii ttoral
transport of sediment to adjacent shorelands, thus increasing their rate of
recession1 the failure to observe proper drainage or lane restoratic~
practices, thereby causing run-off and the erosion and weakening of
shorelands; and the placing of structures in identified floodways so that
the base flood level is increased causing damage in otherwise hazard-free
areas ..
16
.
.
Policy 15 Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not
significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which
supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall
be undertaken in a manner which will not cause an increase in
erosion of such land.
Explanation of Policy
Coastal processes, including the movement of beach materials by water, and
any mining, excavation or dredging in nearshore or offshore waters which
changes the supply and net flow of such materials can deprive shore lands of
their natural regenerative powers. Such mining, excavation and dredging
should be accomplished in a manner so as not to cause a reduction of supply,
and thus an increase of erosion, to such shorelands. Offshore mining is a
future alternative option to land mining for sand and gravel deposits which
are needed to support building and other industries.
Policy 16 Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective
structures where necessary to protect human life, and ne.
development which requires a location within or adjacent to an
erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing
developmentl and only where the public benefits outweigh the long
term monetary and other costs including the potential for
increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective
features.
Explanation of Policy
Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on the State's shorelines.
This policy recognizes the public need for the protection of human life and
existing investment in development or new development which requires a
location in proximity to the coastal area or in adjacent waters to be able
to function. However, it also recognizes the adverse impacts of such
activities and development on the rate of erosion and on natural protective
features and requires that careful analysis be made of such benefits and
long-term costs prior to expending public funds.
Policy 17 Non-structural measures to m1n~1Ze damage to natural resources
and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever
possible.
Explanation of Policy
This policy recognizes both the potential adverse impacts of flooding and
erosion upon development and upon natural protective features in the coastal
area as well as the costs of protection against those hazards which
structural measures entail.
17
Non-structural measures' shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Wi thin coastal erosion hazard areas identified under Section 34-104,
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act (Article 34, Environmental Conservation
Law), and subject to the permit requirements on all regulated activities
and development established under that Law, (a) the use of minimum
setbacks as provided for in Section of 34-108; and (b) the strengthening
of coastal landforms by the planting of appropriate vegetation on dunes
and bluffs, the installation of sand fencing on dunes, the reshaping of
bluffs to achieve an appropriate angle of repose so as to reduce the
potential for slumping and to permit the planting of stabilizing
vegetation, and the installation of drainage systems on bluffs to reduce
runoff and internal seepage of waters which erode or weaken the
landforms; and
2. Wi thin identified flood hazard areas, (a) the avoidance of risk or
damage from flooding by the siting of buildings outside the hazard area.
and (b) the flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above the
base flood level.
This policy shall apply to the planning, siting and design of proposed
acti vi ties and development, including measures to protect existing
activities and development. To ascertain consistency with the policy, it
must be determined if anyone, or a combination of, non-structural measures
would afford the degree of protection appropriate both to the character and
purpose of the activity or development, and to the hazard. If
non-structural measures are determined to offer sufficient protection, then
consistency with the policy would require the use of such measures, whenever
possible.
In determining whether or not non-structural measures to protect against
erosion or flooding will afford the degree of protection appropriate, ar.
analysis, and if necessary, other materials such as plans or sketches of the
activity or development, of the site and of the alternative protection
measures should be prepared to allow an assessment to be made.
GENERAL POLICY
Policy 18 To safeguard the vital economic, social and environmental
interests of the State and of its citizens, proposed maJor
actions in the coastal area must give full consideration to those
interests, and to the safeguards which the State has established
to protect valuable coastal resource areas.
Explanation of Policy
Proposed major actions may be undertaken in the coastal area if they will
not significantly impair valuable coastal waters and resources, thus
frustrating the achievement of the purposes of the safeguards '.which the
State has established to protect those waters and resources. proposed
actions must take into account the social, economic and environmental
interests of the State and its citizens in such matters that would affect
natural resources, water levels and flows, shoreline damage, hydro-electric
power generation, and recreation.
18
.
.
PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES
Policy 19 Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to
public vater-related recreation resources and facilities.
Explanation of Policy
This policy calls for achieving balance among the following factors: the
level of access to a resourCE> or facility, the capacity of a resource or
facili ty, and the protection of natural resources. The imbalance among
these factors is the most significant in the State's urban areas. Because
this is often due to access-related problems, priority viII be given to
improving physical access to existing and potential coastal recreation sites
vi thin the heavily populated urban coastal areas of the State and to
increasing the ability of urban residents to get to coastal recreation areas
by improved public transportation. The particular vater-related recreation
resources and facilities vhich will receive priority for improved access are
public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas and waterfront parks. In
addition, because of the greater competition for waterfront locations within
urban areas, the Coastal Management Program will encourage mixed use areas
and multiple use of facilities to improve access. Specific sites requiring
access improvements and the relative priority the program will accord to
each will be identified in the Public Access Planning Process.
The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of a
proposed action with this policy:
1. The existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or
facilities to public water-related recreation resources and facilities
shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access in
the future from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to
public water-related recreation resources and facilities be eliminated,
unless in the latter case, estimates of future use of these resources
and facilities are too low to justify maintaining or providing increased
public access Or unless such actions are found to be necessary or
beneficial by the public body having jurisdiction over such access as
the result of a reasonable justification of the need to meet systematic
objecitves.
The following is an explanation of the terms used in the above guidelines:
a. Access - the ability and right of the public to reach and use
public coastal lands and waters.
b. Public water-related recreation resources or facilities _ all
public lands or facilities that are suitable for passive or active
recreation that requires either water or a waterfront location or is
enhanced by a waterfront location.
19
c. Public lands or facilities - lands or facilities held by State or
local government in fee simple or less-than-fee simple ownership and
to which the public has access or could have access, including
underwater lands and the foreshore.
d. A reduction in the existing level of public access - includes but
is not limited to the following:
(1) The number of parking spaces at a public water-related
recreation resource or facility is significantly reduced.
(2) The service level of public transportation to a public
water-related related recreation resource or facility is
significantly reduced during peak season use and such reduction
cannot be reasonably justified in terms of meeting systemwide
objectives.
(3) Pedestrian access is diminished
hazardous crossings required at new
facilities, electric power transmission
fac ili ties.
or eliminated because of
or altered transportation
lines, or similar linear
(4) There are substantial increases in the following: already
existing special fares (not including regular fares in any instance)
of public transportation to a public water-related recreation
resource or facility, except where the public body having
jurisdiciton over such fares determines that such substantial fare
increases are necessary; and/or admission fees to such a resource or
facili ty, and an analysis shows that such increases will
significantly reduce usage by individuals or families and 1ncomes
below the State government established poverty level.
e. An elimination of the possibility of increasing public access
in the future includes, but is not limited to the following:
(1) Construction of public facilities which physically prevent the
provision, except at great expense, of convenient public access tc
public water-related recreation resources and facilities.
(2) Sale, lease, or other transfer of public lands that could
provide public access to a public water-related recreation resource
or facility.
(3) COnstruction of private facilities which physically prevent the
provision of convenient public access to public water-related
recreation resources or facilities from public lands and facilities.
2. Any proposed project to increase public access to public water-related
recreation resources and facilities shall be analyzed according to the
following factors:
a. The level of access to be provided should be in accord with
estimated public use. If not, the proposed level of acceSS to be
provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy.
20
.
.
b. The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use
which would exceed the physical capability of the resource or
facility. If this were determined to be the case, the proposed
level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the
policy .
3. The State will not undertake or fund any project which increases access
to a water-related resource or facility that is not open to all members
of the public.
4. In their plans and programs for increasing public access to public
water-related resources and facilities, State agencies shall give
priority in the following order to projects located: within the
boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and served by
public transportation; within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid
Metropolitan Urban Area but not served by public transportation; outside
the defined Urban Area boundary and served by public transportation; and
outside the defined Urban Area boundary but not served by public
transportation.
Policy 20
Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands immediately
adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly
owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a manner
compatible with adjoining uses.
Explanation of Policy
In coastal areas where there are little or no recreation facilities
prOViding specific water-related recreational activities, access to the
publicly-owned lands of the Coast at large should be provided for numerous
activities and pursuits which require only minimal facilities for their
enjoyment. Such access would provide for walking along a beach or a city
waterfront or to a vantage point from which to view the seashore. Similar
activi ties requiring access would include bicycling, birdwatching,
photography, nature study, beachcombing, fishing and hunting.
For those activities, there are several methods of providing access which
will receive priority attention of the Coastal Management Program. These
include: the development of a coastal trails system; the provision of
access across transportation facilities to the coast; the improvement of
access to waterfronts in urban areas; and the promotion of mixed and
multi-use development.
While such publicly-o~~ed lands referenced in the POlicy shall be retained
in public ownership, traditional sales of easements on lands underwater to
adjacent onshore property owners are consistent with this policy, provided
such easements do not substantially interfere with continued public use of
the public lands on which the easement is granted. Also, public use of such
publicly-owned underwater lands and lands immediately adjacent to the shore
shall he discouraged where such use would be inappropriate for reasons of
public safety, military security, or the protection of fragile coastal
resources.
21
The following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of a
proposed action with this policy:
1. Existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities
to existing public coastal lands and/or waters shall not be reduced, nor
shall the possibility of increasing access in the future from adjacent
or nearby public lands or facilities to public coastal lands and/or
waters be eliminated, unless such actions are demonstrated to be of
overriding regional or statewide public benefit, or in the latter case,
estimates of future use of these lands and waters are too low to justify
maintaining or providing increased access.
The following is an explanation of the terms used in the above guidelines:
a. (See definitions under first policy of "access", and "public lands
or facilities.).
b. A reduction in the existing level of public access - includes but
is not limited to the following:
(1) Pedestrian access is diminished or eliminated because of
hazardous crossings required at new or altered transportation
facili ties, electric power transmission lines, or similar linear
facilities.
(2) Pedestrian access is diminished or blocked completely by publlC
or private development.
c. An elimination of the possibility of increasing public access in
the future - includes but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Construction of public facilities which physically prevent tho
provision, except at great expense, of convenient public access to
public water-related recreation resources and facilities.
(2) Sale, lease, or other conveyance of public lands that coulc
provide public access to public coastal lands and/or waters.
(3) Construction of private facilities which physically prevent the
provision of convenient public access to public coastal lands and/or
waters from public lands and facilities.
2. The existing level of public access within public coastal lands or
waters shall not be reduced or eliminated.
&. A reduction in the existing level of public access - includes but
is not limited to the following:
(1) Access is reduced or eliminated because of hazardous crossings
required at new or altered transportation facilities, electric power
transmission lines, or similar linear facilities.
(2) Access is reduced or blocked completely by any public
developments.
22
.
.
3. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and
along the coast shall be provided by new land use or development, except
where (a) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security, or
the protection of identified fragile coastal resources 1 (b) adequate
access exists within one-half mile; or (c) agriculture would be
adversely affected. Such access shall not be required to be open to
public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept
responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway.
4. The State will not undertake or fund any project which increases access
to a water-related resource or facility that is not open to all members
of the public.
s. In their plans and programs for increasing public access, State
agencies shall give priority in the following order to projects located:
within the boundaries of the Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area and
served by public transportation 1 within the boundaries of the
Federal-Aid Metropolitan Urban Area but not served by public
transportation1 outside the defined Urban Area boundary and served by
public transportation; and outside the defined Urban Area boundary but
not served by public transportation.
6. Proposals for increased public access to coastal lands and waters shall
be analyzed according to the following factors:
a. The level of access to be provided should be in accord with
estimated public USe. If not, the proposed level of access to be
provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy.
b. The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use
which would exceed the physical capability of the resource coastal
lands. If this were determined to be the case, the proposed level
of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent wi tr. the
policy.
RECREATlOl: POLICIES
Policy 21 Water dependent and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged
and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water
related uses along the coast.
Explanation of Policy
Water-related recreation includes such obviously water-dependent activities
as boating, swirmning, and fishing as well as certain acti vi ties which are
enhanced by a coastal location and increase the general public's access to
the coast such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic
overlooks and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal
scenery .
23
Provided the development of water-related recreation is consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of such important coastal resources as fish and
wildlife habitats, aesthetically significant areas, historic and cultural
resources, agriculture and significant mineral and fossil depcsits, and
provided demand exists, water-related recreation development is to be
increased and such uses shall have a higher priority than any non-coastal
dependent uses, including non-water-related recreation uses. In addition,
water-dependent recreation uses shall have a higher priority over water
enhanced recreation uses. Determining a priority among coastal dependent
uses will require a case by case analysis.
All\ong priority areas for increasing water-related recreation opportunities
are those areas where access to the recreation oppcrtunities of the coast
can be provided by new or existing public transportation services and those
areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted by highways,
railroads, industry, or other forms of existing intensive land use or
development. The DOS, working with the Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation and with local governments, will identify communities
whose use of the shore has been so restricted and those sites shoreward of
such developments which are suitable for recreation and can be made
accessible. Priority shall be given to recreational development of such
lands.
The siting or design of new public development in a manner which would
result in a barrier to the recreational use of a major pcrtion of a
community's shore should be avoided as much as practicable.
All\ong the types of water-dependent recreation, provision of adequate boating
services to meet future demand is to be encouraged by this Program. The
siting of boating facilities must be consistent with preservation and
enhancement of other coastal resources and with their capacity to
accommodate demand. The prevision of new public boating facilities is
essential in meeting this demand, but such public actions shct:ld avoid
competition with private boating development. Boating facilities will, as
appropriate, include parking, park-like surroundings, toilet facilities, and
pumpout facilities. Harbors of Refuge are particularly needed along Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario. There is a need for a better locational pattern of
boating facilities to correct problems of overused, insufficient, or
improperly sited facilities.
water-related off-road recreational vehicle use is an acceptable activity,
provide no adverse environmental impacts occur. Where adverse environmental
impact will occur, mitigating measures will be implemented, where
practicable to minimize such adverse impacts. If acceptable mitigation is
not practicable, prohibition of the use by off-road recreational vehicles
will be posted and enforced.
Groundwater contamination presents a threat to Fire Island National Seashore
water resources.
24
.
.
Policy 22 Development when located adjacent to the shore will provide
for water-related recreation whenever such use is compatible with
reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is
compatible with the primary purpose of the development.
Explanation of Policy
Many developments present practical opportunities for providing recreation
facilities as an additional use of the site or facility. Therefore whenever
developments are located adjacent to the shore they should to the fullest
extent perm! tted by existing law provide for some form of water-related
recreation use unless there are compelling reaSOns why any form of such
recreation would not be compatible with the development, or a reasonable
demand for public use cannot be foreseen.
The types of development which can generally provide water-related
recreation as a multiple use include but are not limited to:
parks
highways
power plants
utility transmission rights of way
sewage treatment facilities
mental health facilities.
hospi tals.
prisons.
schools, universities.
military facilities. .
nature preserves.
large residential subdivisions (50 units)
shopping centers
office buildings
Prior to taking action relative to any development, State agencies should
consul t with the State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, and if there is an approved local waterfront program, with the
municipality in which the development is to locate, to dete~,ine appropria~e
recreation uses. The agency should provide OPRHP and the municipality with
the opportunity to participate in project planning.
Appropriate recreation uses which do not require any substantial additional
construction shall be provided at the expense of the project sponsor
provided the cost does not exceed 2% of total project cost.
In determining whether compelling
recreation as a multiple use,
recognition that some risk is
facilities.
reasons exist which would make inadvisable
safety considerations should reflect a
acceptable in the use of recreational
Whenever a proposed development would be consistent with eMF policies and
the development could, through the provision of recreation and other
25
II1Ultiple uses, significantly increase public use of the shore, then such
development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to the shore (this
situation would generally only apply within the more developed portions of
urban areas).
*
The types of recreation uses likely to be compatible with these
facilities are limited to the more passive forms, such as trails or
fishing access. In some cases, land areas not directly or immediately
needed by the facility could be used for recreation.
HISTORIC RESOURCES AND VISUAL QUALITY POLICIES
Policy 23 Protect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or
sites that are of significance in the history, architecture,
archeology or culture of the State, its communi ties, or the
Nation.
Explanation of Policy
Among the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those
structures or areas which are of historic, archeological, or cultural
significance. The protection of these structures must involve a recognition
of their importance by all agencies and the ability to identify and describe
them. Protection must include concern not just with specific sites but with
areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites. The policy
is not to be construed as a passive mandate but must include effective
efforts when appropriate to restore or revitalize through adaptive reuse.
While the program is concerned with the preservation of all such resources
within the coastal bcundary, it will actively promote the preservation of
historic and cultural resources which have a coastal relationship.
The structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the
history, architecture, archeology or culture of the State, its communities.
or the Nation comprise the following resources:
1. A resource which is in a Federal or State park established, among other
reasons, to protect and preserve the resource.
2. A resource on, nominated to be on, or determined eligible to be on the
National or State Registers of Historic Places.
3. A resource on or nominated to be on the State Nature and Historic
Preserve Trust~
4. An archeological resource which is on the State Department of
Education's inventory of archeological sites~
5.
A local landmark, park,
located within the
revitalization program.
or locally designated historic district that is
boundary of an approved local waterfront
6~ A resource that is a significant component of an Urban Cultural Park.
26
.
.
All practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that
are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology or culture of
the State, its cOIIUlIUnities or the Nation shall be deemed to include the
consideration and adoption of any techniques, measures, or controls to
prevent a significant adverse change to such significant structures,
districts, areas or sites. A significant adverse change includes but is not
limited to:
1. Alteration of or addition ~o one or more of the architectural,
structural ornamental or functional features of a building, structure,
or site that is a recognized historic, cultural, or archeological
resource, or component thereof. Such features are defined as
encompassing the style and general arrangement of the exterior of a
structure and any original or historically significant interior features
including type, color and texture of building materials; entry ways and
doors; fenestration; lighting fixtures; roofing, sculpture and carving;
steps; rails; fencing; windows; vents and other openings; grillwork;
signs; canopies; and other appurtenant fixtures and, in addition, all
buildings, structures, outbuildings, walks, fences, steps, topographical
features, earthworks, paving and signs located on the designated
resource property. (To the extent they are relevant, the secretary of
the Interior's .Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. shall be adhered to.l
2. Demolition or removal in full or part of a building, structure, or
earthworks that is a recognized historic, cultural, or archeological
resource or component thereof, to include all those features described
in (a) above plus any other appurtenant fixture associated with a
building structure or earthwork.
3. All proposed actions within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property
boundary of the historic, architectural, cultural, or archeologica:
resource and all actions lid thin an historic district that wOt;,ld be
incompatible with the objective or preserving the quality and integrity
of the resource. Primary considerations to be used in making judgement
about compatibility should focus on the visual and locational
relationship between the proposed action and the special character of
the historic, cultural, or archeological resource. Compatibili ty
between the proposed action and the resource means that the general
appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural
style, design material, scale, proportion, composi tien, mass, line,
color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the
proposed actions. Wi th historic districts this would include
infrastructure improvements or changes, such as, street and sidewalk
paving, street furniture and lighting.
This policy shall not be construed to prevent the construction,
reconstruction, alteration, or demolition of any building, structure,
earthwork, or component thereof of a recognized historic, cultural or
archeological resource which has been officially certified as being
imminently dangerous to life or public health. Nor shall the policy be
27
construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, repair, or proper restoration
according to the u.s. Department of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings of any building,
structure, site or earthwork, or component thereof of a recognized historic,
cultural or archeological resource which does not involve a significant
adverse change to the resource, as defined above,
Policy 24 Prevent impairment qf scenic resources of statewide
significance.
Explanation of Policy
The Coastal Management Program will identify on the coastal area map scen~C
resources of statewide significance. A list of preliminary identified
resources appears in the Appendix [to the NYS Coastal Management Program].
The following general criteria will be combined to determine significance:
Quality. The basic elements of design (i.e., two-dimensional line,
three-dimensional form, texture and color) combine to create all high
quali ty landscapes. The water, landforms, and man-made components of
scenic coastal landscapes exhibit variety of line, form, texture and
color. This variety is not, however, 50 great as to be chaotic. Scenic
coastal landscapes also exhibit unity of components. This unity is not,
however, so complete as to be monotonous. Example: the Thousand
Islands where the mix of water, land, vegetative and man-made components
creates interesting variety, while the -organization of these same
components creates satisfying unity.
Often, high quality landscapes contain striking contrasts between lines,
forms, textures and colors. Example: A waterfall where horizontal and
vertical lines and smooth and turbulent textures meet in dramatic
juxtaposition.
Finally, high quality landscapes are generally
features, such structures or other elements which
terms of siting, form, scale, and/or materials.
free of discordant.
are inappropriate in
Uniqueness. The uniqueness of high quality landscapes is determined by
the frequency of occurence of similar resources in a region of the State
or beyond.
Public Accessibility. A scenic resource of significance must be
visually and, where appropriate, physically accessible to the public.
Public Recognition. Widespread recognition of a scenic resource is not
a characteristic intrinsic to the resource. It does, however,
demonstrate people's appreciation of the resource for its visual. as
well as evocative, qualities. Public recognition serves to reinforce
analytic conclusions about the significance of a resource.
28
.
.
When considering a proposed action, agencies shall first determine whether
the action could affect a scenic resource of statewide significance. This
determination would involve: (a) a review of the coastal area map to
ascertain if it shows an identified scenic resource which could be affected
by the proposed action, and (b) a review of the types of activities proposed
to determine if they would be likely to impair the scenic beauty of an
identified resource.
The following siting and fac.l.lity-related guidelines are to be used to
achieve this policy, recognizing that each development situation is unique
and that the guidelines will have to be applied accordingly. Guidelines
include:
siting structures and other development such as highways, power
lines, and signs, back from shorelines or in other inconspicuous
locations to maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline and to
retain views to and from the shore;
clustering or orienting structures to retain views, save open space
and provide visual organization to a development;
incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic
bUildings) into the overall development scheme;
removing deteriorated and/or degrading elements;
maintaining or restoring the original land form, except when changes
screen unattractive elements and/or add appropriate interest;
maintaining or adding vegetation to provide interest, encourage the
presence of wildlife, blend structures into the site, and obscure
unattractive elements, except when selective clearing removes
unsightly, diseased or hazardous vegetation and when selective
clearing creates views of coastal waters;
using appropriate materials, in addition to vegetation, to screen
unattractive elementsr
using appropriate
buildings and other
to the landscape.
scales, forms and materials to ensure that
structures are compatible with and add interest
29
Policy 25 Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources which
are not identified as being of statewide significance. but which
contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area.
Explanation of Policy
When considering a proposed action, which would not affect a scenic resource
of statewide significance, agencies shall undertake to ensure that the
action would be undertaken so ~s to protect, restore or enhance the overall
scenic quality of the coastal area. Activities which could ilnpair or
further degrade scenic quality are the same as those cited under the
previous policy, i.e., modification of natural landforms, removal of
vegetation, etc. However, the effects of these activities would not be
considered as serious for the general coastal area as for significant scen~c
areas.
The siting and design guidelines listed under the previous policy should be
considered for proposed actions in the general coastal area. More emphasis
may need to be placed on removal of existing elements. especially those
which degrade, and on addition of new elements or other changes wh~ch
enhance. Removal of vegetation at key points to ilnprove visual access to
coastal waters is one such change which might be expected to enhance scenic
quali ty.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS POLICY
Policy 26 Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's
coastal area.
Explanation of Policy
The first step in conserving agricultural lands is the iden'tif ication of
such lands. The Department of State is mapping all ilnportant agricultural
lands within the State's coastal area. The following criteria have been
used to prepare the maps, and the mapped information will be incorporated 1n
the New York State Coastal Resources Inventory and on the Coastal Area Map.
1
Land meeting any of the following criteria is being mapped.
1. Land which meet the definition of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as
being prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland cf statew~de
importance.
a.
Prime farmland is defined by USDA Soil
#7 Agriculture Part 657.5(a), January.
associations that meet this definition
coastal county.2
Consen~ation Se~'ice in CRF
1979. A list of the soil
has been prepared for each
30
.
.
b. Unique farmland is defined by USDASCS in CRr '7 Agriculture Part
657.5(b). In the coastal area of New York all fruit and vegetable
farming meets the terms of the definition.
c. Farmland of Statewide importance is defined by USDASCS in CRr ~7
Agriculture Part 656.5(c). Lists of soil associations which
constitute farmland of Statewide importance have been prepared for
each coastal county.
2. Active farmland within Agricultural Districts. The maps of each
Agricultural District shows land committed by farmers. This is the land
that will be mapped as active farmland. The district boundary will also
be shown.
3. Areas identified as having high economic viability for farming. Any
farm not identified under 1 and/or 2 above and which is located in an
area identified as having "high viability" on the map entitled "Economic
Viability of Farm Areas" prepared by the Office of Planning Coordination
in May, 1969. This would be the basis for initial identificatioc. of
areas having high economic viability for farming. Areas will be added
and/or deleted based on comments from the agricultural community.
4. Areas adjacent to land identified under 1 above if these areas are
being farmed and are part of a farm with identified important
agricultural lands.
5. Prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of Statewide sigr.ificance
will not be identified as important agricultural land whenever it occurs
as parcels of land less than 25 acres in size and these small parcels
are not within a mile of areas of active farming.
Given the Program's application to a narrow strip of land, llllFlementing a
policy of promoting agricultural use of land must, to be practical,
concentrate on controlling the replacement of agricultural land uses ",i th
non-agricUl tural land use as the result of some public actior.. The many
other factors such as markets, taxes, and regulations, which influence the
viabili ty of agriculture in a given area, can only be addressed on a
Statewide or national basis.
The Program policy requires a concern for the loss of any important
agricul tural land. However, the primary concern must be with the loss of
agricul tural land when that loss would have a significant effect oc. an
agricul tural area's ability to continue to exist, to prosper, and ever. to
expand. A series of determinations are necessary to establish whether a
public action is consistent with the conservation and protection of
agricultural lands or whether it is likely to be harmful tc the health of an
agricultural area. In brief these determinations are as follows:
First, it must be determined whether a proposed public action would result
in the loss of important agricultural lands as mapped On the Coastal
Inventory. If it would not result, either directly or indirectly, in the
loss of identified important agricultural lands, then the action is
consistent with the policy on agriculture. If it is determined that the
31
action would result in a loss of identified important agricultural lands bu~
that loss would not have an adverse effect on the viability of agriculture
in the surrounding area, then the action may also be consistent with the
agriculture policy. However, in that case the action must be undertaken in
a manner that would minimize the loss of important farmland. If the action
is determined to result in a significant loss of important agricultural
land, that is if the loss is to a degree sufficient to adversely affect
surrounding agriculture's viability, - its ability to continue to exist, to
prosper. and even to expand -. then the action is not consistent with this
agriculture policy.
The following guidelines define more fully what must be considered in making
the above determinations:
A. A public action would be likely to significantly impair the viability
of an agricultural area in which identified important agricultural lands
are located if:
1. the action would occur on identified important agricultural land and
would:
a. consume more than 10% of the land of an active farm! containing
such identified important agricultural lands
b. consume a total of 100 acres or more of identified important
agricultural land, or
c. divide an active farm with identified important agricultural la~d
into two or more parts thus impeding efficient farm operation
2. the action would result in environmental changes which may reduce
the productivity or adversely affect the quality of the product of
any identified important agricultural lands.
3. the action would create real estate market conditions favorable to
the conversion of large areas of identified important agricultura:'
land to non-agricultural uses. Such conditions may be created by:
a. public water or sewer facilities to serve non-farm structures
b. transportation improvements, except for maintenance of, and
safety improvements to. existing facilities, that serve non-farm
or non-farm related development
c. major non-agribusiness commercial development adjacent to
identified agricultural lands
d. major public institutions
e. residential uses other than farm dwellings
f. any change in land use regulations
which would encourage or allow
agricultural use of the land
applying to agricultural land
uses incompatible with the
32
.
.
B. The following types of facilities and activities should not be
construed as having adverse effects on the preservation of agricultural
land:
1. Farm dwellings, barns, silos, and other accessory uses and
structures incidental to agricultural production or necessary for
farm family supplemental income
2.
Agribusiness development which includes
local support services and commercial
maintain an agricultural operation, e.g.,
farm machinery dealer, veterinarian, food
the entire structure of
enterprises necessary to
milk hauler, grain dealer,
processing plants
c. In determining whether an action that would result in the loss of
farmland is of overriding regional or Statewide benefit, the following
factors should be considered:
1. For an action to be considered overriding it must be shown to
provide significantly greater benefits to the region or State than
are provid~d by the affected agricultural area (not merely the land
directly affected by the action). In determining the benefits of
the affected agricultural to the region or State, consideration must
be given to its social and cultural value, its economic
availability, its environmental benefits, its existing and potential
contribution to food or fiber production in the State and any State
food policy, as well as its direct economic benefits.
a. An agricultural area is an area predominantly in farming and in
which the farms produce similar products and/or rely on the same
agribusiness support services and are to be significant degree
economically inter-dependent. At a minimum, this area should
consist of at least 500 acres of identified important agriculture
land. For the purpose of analyzing impacts of any action on
agriculture, the boundary of such area need not be restricted to
land wi thin the coastal boundary. If the affected agricultural
lands lie within an agricultural district then, at a minim~, the
agricultural area should include the entire agricultural
district.
b. In determining the benefits of an agricultural area, its
relationship to agricultural lands outside the area should also
be considered.
c. The estimate of the economic viability of the affected
agricultural area should be based on an assessment of:
1. soil resources, topography, conditions of climate and water
resources;
if. availability of agribusiness and other support services, and
the level and condi ticn of investments in farm real estate,
livestock and equipment,
iii. the level of farming skills as evidenced by income obtained,
yield estimates for crops, and costs being experienced with the
present types and conditions of buildings, equipment, and
cropland;
33
iv. use of new technology and the rates at which new technology is
adopted;
v. competition from substitute products and other farming regions
and trends in total demand for given products;
vi. patterns of farm ownership for their effect on farm efficiency
and the likelihood that farms will remain in use.
d. The estimate of the social and cultural value of farming in the
area should be based Oft an analysis of:
i. the history of farming in the area;
ii. the length of time farms have remained in one family;
iii. the degree to which farmers in the area share a cultural or
ethnic heritage;
iv. the extent to which products are sold and consumed locally;
v. the degree to which a specific crop(s) has become identified with
a cOll1lllunity.
e. An estimate of the environmental benefits of the affected
agriculture should be based on analysis of:
i. the extent to which the
practiced provides a habitat or
ii. the extent to which a farm
of an area;
iii. any regional or local open space plans, and degree to which the
open space contributes to air quality;.
iv. the degree to which the affected agriculture does, or coulc,
contribute to the establishment of a clear edge between rural and
urban development.
affected agriculture
food for wildlife;
landscape adds to the
as
currently
visual quaE ty
D. Whenever a proposed action is determined to have an ins~gnlficant
adverse effect on identified important agricultural land or whenever ic
is permitted to substantially hinder the achievement of the policy
according to DOS regulations. Part 600, or as a result of the findings
of an EIS, then the required minimization should be undertaken in the
following manner:
1. The proposed action shall, to the extent practicable, be sited on
any land not identified as important agricultural, or, if it must be
sited on identified im.portant agricultural land, sited to avoid
classes of agricultural land according to the following priority:
a. prime farmland in orchards or vineyards
b. unique farmland in orchard or vineyards
c. other prime farmland in active farming
e. farmland of Statewide importance in active farming
f. active farmland identified as having high econom'c viability
g. prime farmland not being farmed
h. farmland of Statewide importance not being farmed
34
.
.
2. To the extent practicable, agricultural use of identified important
agricultural land not directly necessary for the operation of the
proposed non-agricultural action should be provided for through such
means as lease arrangements with farmers, direct undertaking of
agriculture, or sale of surplus land to farmers. Agricultural use
of such land shall have priority over any other proposed multiple
use of the land.
1
After mapping according to this definition was substantially completed,
the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets completed development of a
new agricultural land classification system. As soon as is practical the
following definition will be the basis for revising the maps of coastal
agricultural l~nd. Important agricultural land shall include all land
within an agricultural district or subject to an eight-year commitment
which has been farmed within at least two of the last five years, or any
land farmed within at least two of the last five years in soil groups 1-4
as classified by the Land Classification System established by the NYS
Department of Agriculture and Markets, or any land farmed within at least
two of the last five years which is influenced by climate conditions which
support the growth of high value corps. Additionally, agricultural land
not meeting the above criteria but located adjacent to any such land and
forming part of an on-going agricultural enterprise shall be considered
important agricultural land.
2
For the purposes of this map the urban areas which are to be excluded are
all cities, the counties of Nassau, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and
Erie, and any built up area (this applies to c. also).
3
A farm is defined as an area of at least 10 acres devoted to agricultural
production as defined in the Agricultural District Law and from which
agricultural products have yielded gross receipts of $10,000 in the past
year.
ENERGY AND ICE MANAGEMEh~ POLICIES
Policy 27 Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy
facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy
needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and
the facility's need for a shorefront location.
Explanation of Policy
Demand for energy in New York will increase, although at a rate slower than
previously predicted. The State expects to meet these energy demands
through a combination of conservation measures; traditional and alternative
technologies; and use of various fuels including coal in greater proportion.
A determination of public need for energy is the first step in the process
for siting any new facilities. The directives for determining this need are
contained primarily in Article 5 of the New York State Energy Law. That
35
Article requires the preparation of a State Energy Master Plan. With
respect to transmission lines and steam electric generating facilities,
Articles VII and VIII of the State's Public Service Law require additional
forecasts and establish the basis for determining the compatibility of these
facilities with the environment and the necessity for a shore front location.
The policies derived from the siting regulations under these Articles are
entirely consistent with the general coastal zone policies derived from
other laws, particularly the regulations promulgated pursuant to the
Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. That Act is used for
the purposes of ensuring consistency with the Coastal Management Program.
The Department of State will cOllmlent on the State Energy Master Plan,
present testimony for the record during relevant certification proceedings
under Articles VII and VIII of the PSL; and use the State SEQR and OOS
regulations to ensure that decisions on other proposed energy facilities
(other than transmission facilities and steam electric generating plants)
which would impact the coastal area are made consistent with coastal
policies.
Policy 28 Ice management practices shall not interfere with the production
of hydroelectric power, damage significant fish and wildlife and
their habitats, or increase shoreline erosion or flooding.
Explanation of Policy
Prior to undertaking actions required for ice management, an assessment must
be made of the potential effects of such actions upon the product~on of
hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife and their habitats as will be
identified in the Coastal Area Maps, flood levels and damage, rates of
shoreline erosion damage, and upon natural protective features.
Following such an examination, adequate methods of avoidance or mit~gation
of such potential effects must be utilized if the proposed action is to be
implemented.
Policy 29 Encourage the development of energy resources on the Outer
Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water bodies, and
enSure the environmental safety of such activities.
Explanation of Policy
The State recognizes the need to develop new indigenous energy sources. It
also recognizes that such development may endanger the environment. Among
the various energy sources being examined are those which may be found on
the OUter Continental Shelf (OCS) or in Lake Erie. The State has been
encouraging the wise development of both.
Matters pertaining to the OCS are the responsibility of the Department of
Environmental Conservation. In 1977, the Department, in cooperation with
regional and local agencies, completed a study which identified potential
sites along the marine coast for on-shore OCS facilities. To date, these
36
.
.
sites have not been developed for this purpose. The Department, also,
actively participates in the OCS planning process by reviewing and voicing
the State's concerns about federal OCS oil and gas lease sales and plans.
In its review of these proposed sales and plans, the Department considers a
number of factors such as the effects upon navigational safety in the
established traffic lanes leading into and from New York Harbor; the impacts
upon important finfish, shellfish and wildlife populations and their
spawning areas; economic and other effects upon commercial and recreational
fishing activities; impacts. upon public recreational resources and
oPportunities along the marine coast; the potential for hazards; impacts
upon biological communities; and water quality.
The Department of Environmental Conservation has also examined the potential
impacts of Lake Erie gas drilling and is instituting reasonable guidelines
so that activities can proceed without damage to public water supplies and
other valuable coastal resources. State law prohibits development of wells
nearer than one-half mile from the shoreline, two miles from public water
supply intakes, and one thousand feet from any other structure or
installation in or on Lake Erie. Further, State law prohibits production of
liquid hydrocarbons in Lake Erie, either alone or in association with
natural gas. The Department has not, however, reached a decision as to
whether or not the lands under Lake Erie will be leased for gas exploration
purposes.
WATER AND AIR RESOURCES POLICIES
Policy 30 Municipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants,
including but not 1i1ni ted to, toxic and hazardous substa:1ces,
into coastal waters will conform to State and National ",'ater
quality standards.
Explanation of Policy
Municipal, industrial and commercial discharges include not only "end-of-the
pipe" discharges into surface and groundwater but also plant site runoff,
leaching, spillages, sludge and other waste disposal, and drainage from raw
material storage sites. Also, the regulated industrial diSCharges are both
those which directly empty into receiving coastal waters and those which
pass through municipal treatment systems before reaching the State's
waterways.
Policy 31 State coastal area policies and management objectives of approved
local Waterfront Revitalization Programs will be considered while
reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water
quality standards; however, those waters already overburdened
wi th contaminants will be recognized as being a development
constraint.
Explanation of Policy
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217 the State has
classified its coastal and other waters in accordance with considerations of
best usage in the interest of the public and has adopted water quality
37
standards for.each class of waters. These classifications and standards are
reviewable at least every three years for possible revision or amendment.
Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs and State coastal management
policies shall be factored into the review process for coastal waters.
However, such consideration shall not affect any water pollution control
requirement establishment by the State pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act.
The State has identified cer,ain stream segments as being either "water
quality limiting" or "effluent limiting.' Waters not meeting State
standards and which would not be expected to meet these standards even after
applying 'best practicable treatment" to effluent discharges are classified
as "water quality limiting." Those segments meeting standards or those
expected to meet them after application of 'best practicable treatment' are
classified as 'effluent limiting," and all new waste discharges must receive
"best practicable treatment.' However, along stream segments classified as
"water quality limiting, " waste treatment beyond "best practicable
treatment" would be required, and costs of applying such additional
treatment may be prohibitive for new development.
Policy 32 Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste
systems in small COIJUnuni ties where the costs of conventional
facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the existing
tax base of these communities.
Explanation of Policy
Alternative systems include individual septic tanks and other subsurface
disposal systems, dual systems, small systems serving clusters of households
or commercial users, and pressure or vacuum sewers. These types of systems
are often more cost effective in smaller less densely populated communities
and for which conventional facilities are too expensive.
Policy 33 Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of
stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining ln~c
coastal waters.
Explanation of Policy
Best management practices include both structural and non-structural methods
of preventing or mitigating pollution caused by the discharge of stormwater
runoff and combined sewer overflows. At present, structural approaches to
controlling stormwater runoff (e.g., construction of retention basins) and
combined sewer overflows (e.g., replacement of combined system with separate
sanitary and stormwater collection systems) are not economically feasible.
Proposed amendments to the Clean Water Act, however, will authorize funding
to address combined selNer overflows in areas where they create severe wate!~
quality impacts. Until funding for such projects becomes available,
non-structural approaches (e. g., improved street cleaning, reduced use of
road salt) will be encouraged.
38
.
.
Policy 34 Discharge of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels
subject to State jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect
significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and
water supply areas.
Explanation of Policy
The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other solid and liquid
materials from watercraft and marinas into the State's waters is regulated.
Priority will be given to the enforcement of this Law in areas such as
shellfish beds and other significant habitats, beaches, and public water
supply intakes, which need protection from contamination by vessel wastes.
Also, specific effluent standards for marine toilets have been promulgated
by the Department of Environmental Conservation (6 NYCRR, Part 657).
Policy 35 Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters will be
undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit
requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife
habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features,
important agricultural lands, and wetlands.
Explanation of Policy
Dredging often proves to be essential for waterfront revitalization and
development, maintaining navigation channels at sufficient depths, pollutant
removal and meeting other coastal management needs. Such dredging projects,
however, may adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitats,
wetlands and other important coastal resources. Often these adverse effects
can be minimized through careful design and timing of the dredging operation
and proper siting of the dredge spoil disposal site. Dredging permits will
be granted if it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that these anticipated
adverse effects have been reduced to levels which satisfy State dredging
permit standards set forth in regulations developed pursuant to
EnVironmental Conservation Law, (Articles IS, 24, 25 and 34), and are
consistent with policies pertaining to the protection of coastal resources
(State Coastal Management policies 7, 24, IS, 26 and 44).
Policy 36 Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and
other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will
prevent or at least minimize spills into coastal waters; all
practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of
such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required
when these spills occur.
Explanation of Policy
See Policy 39 for definition of hazardous materials.
39
Policy 37
Best management practices will be utilized to m~n~~ze
non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics
soils into coastal waters.
the
and
eroded
Explanation of Policy
Best management- practices used to reduce these sources of pollution could
include but are not limited to, encouraging organic farming and pest
management principles, soil erosion control practices, and surface drainage
control techniques.
Policy 38 The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater
supplies, will be conserved and protected, particularly where
such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water
supply.
Explanation of Policy
Surface and groundwater are the principle sources of drinking water in the
State, and therefore must be protected. Since Long Island's groundwater
supply has been designated a "primary source aquifer," all actions must be
reviewed relative to their impacts on Long Island's groundwater aquifers.
Policy 39 The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes,
particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be
conducted in such a manner so as. to protect groundwater and
surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats,
recreation areas, important agricultural lands and sce:lic
resources.
Explanation of Policy
The definitions of terms "solid wastes" and "solid wastes manageme:l~
facilities" are taken from New York's Solid Waste Management Act
(Environmental Conservation Law, Article 27). Solid wastes include sludgtS
from air or water pollution control facilities, demolition and constructio~
-debris and industrial and commercial wastes.
...
Hazardous wastes are unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes
generally characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic.
More specifically, waste is defined in Environmental Conservation Law
(Section 27-0901 (3)) as "waste or combination of wastes which because of
its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
characteristics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment which improperly treated, stored,
transported or otherwise managed." A list of hazardous wastes (NYCRR Part
366 will be adopted by DEe wi thin 6 months after EPA formally adopts , ts
list.
40
.
.
Policy 42 Coastal Management policies will be considered if the State
reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant
deterioration regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act.
Explanation of Policy
The policies of the State and local coastal ~agement programs concerning
proposed land and water uses and the protection:and preservation of special
management areas will be take~ into account prior to any action to change
prevention of significant deterioration land classifications in coastal
regions or adjacent areas. In addition, the Department of State will
provide the Department of Environmental Conservation with recommendations
for proposed prevention of significant deterioration land classification
designations based upon State and local coastal management programs.
Policy 43 Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the
generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursors:
nitrates and sulfates.
Explanation of Policy
The New York Coastal Management Program incorporates the State's policies on
acid rain. As such, the Coastal Management Program will assist in the
State's efforts to control acid rein. These efforts to control acid rain
will enbance the continued viaLility of coastal fisheries, wildlife,
agricultural, scenic and water resources.
Policy 44 Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve
the benefits derived from these areas.
.
Explanation of Policy
Tidal wetlands include tbe following ecological zones: coastal fresb mars~
intertidal marsh; coastal shoals, bars and flats; littoral zone; high mai~c
or salt meadow; and formerly connected tidal wetlands. These tidal wetland
areas are officially delineated on tbe Department of Envirolunental
Conservation's Tidal Wetlands Inventory Map.
Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and flats supporting
aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation and other wetlands so defined in the
N.Y.S. Freshwater Wetlands Act and the N.Y.S. Protection of waters Act.
The benefits derived from the preservation of tidal and freshwater wetlands
include but are not limited to:
habitat for wildlife and fish, including a substantial portion of
the State's commercial fin and shellfish varieties; and contribution
to associated aquatic food chains;
erosion, flood and storm control;
natural pollution treatment;
groundwater protection;
recreational opportunities;
educational and scientific opportunities; and
aesthetic open space in many otherwise densely developed areas.
42
-
Examples of solid waste management facilities include resource recovery
facilities, sanitary landfills and solid waste reduction facilities.
Although a fundamental problem associated with the disposal and treatment of
sQlid wastes is the contamination of water resources, other related problems
may include: filling of wetlands and littoral areas, atmospheric loading,
and degradation of scenic resources.
Policy 40 Effluent discharged from major steam electric generating and
industrial facilit!'es into coastal waters will not be unduly
injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform to State water
quality standards.
Explanation of Policy
The State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment must
consider a number of factors when reviewing a proposed site for facility
construction. One of these factors is that the facility "not discharge any
effluent that will be unduly injurious to the propagation and protection of
fish and wildlife, the industrial develoFlllent of the State, the public
health, and public enjoyment of the receiving waters." The effects of
thermal discharges on water quality and aquatic organisms will be considered
by the siting board when evaluating an applicant's request to construct a
new steam electric generating facility.
Policy 41 Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause
National or State air quality standards to be violated.
Explanation of Policy
New York's Coastal Management Program incorporates the air quality pol>c>es
and programs developed for the State by the Department of Environmental
Conservation pursuant to the Clean Air Act and State Laws on air qual>ty.
The requirements of the Clean Air Act are the minimum air quality control
requirements applicable within the coastal area.
To the extent possible, the State Implementation Plan will be consistent
with coastal lands and water use policies. Conversely, coastal management.
guidelines and program decisions with regard to land and water use and any
recommendations with regard to specific sites for major new or expanded
industrial, energy, transportation, or commercial facilities will reflect an
assessment of their compliance with the air quality requirements of the
State Implementation Plan.
i
:If
7'
The Department of Environmental Conservation will allocate substantial
resources to develop a regulatory and management program to identify and
eliminate toxic discharges into the atmosphere. The State's Coastal
Management Program will Assist in coordinating major toxic control
programming efforts in the coastal regions and in supporting research on the
multi-media nature of taxies and their economic and environmental effects on
coastal resources.
41
,
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 1986
Town Clerk Southold
,I I
.
.1
,/~ < / /.
~~/
PRO~ESSIONAL ENGINEER
MAR
o {....
/', U
".^\~r
! u,
HOBART ROAD
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971
516 -765 -2954
Harch 20, 1986
Southold Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Re: Southport Development
Dear Mrs. Terry:
David Emilita had requested a dredge spoil analysis
and water samples for Southport Development, to be
included in the final Environmental Impact Statement.
We are hereby transmitting said analysis from The
Land Use Company for inclusion in the final
Bnvironmental Impact Statement.
Very truly yours,
0~ ,-~~'l~k~-tt ~re'.~
, . .~o~
! ' ---
Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E.
.TF:mdh
Enc.
cc. :
szepatowski Associates,
23 Narragansett Avenue
Jamestown, RI 02835
Inc.
.
.
~
Clhe .-Cand CUj.e Company
N. COUNTRY RD.. BOX 36.
WADING RIVER. N.Y. "79'
(5'0) 9'9'3575
DREDGE SPOIL ANALYSIS
SOUTH PORT DEVELOPMENT
Sediment Analysis
On February 1, 1986, the staff of the Land Use Company
collected core samples from four different locations in the
subject area (see map) the samples were delivered to Eco
Test laboratories, Inc. of North Babylon on February 4, 1986
and the results are as follows:
SAMPLE, Bottom Sediment, Sample A, 11125 AM
Lindane ug/Kg ( 2.0 Cadmium as Cd m g / Kg. 0.060
Heptachlor ug/Kg .::. 2.0 Chromium as Cr mg/Kg 7.5
Aldrin ug/Kg <.2.0 Copper as Cu mg/Kg 9.S.
Heptachlor Epoxide ug/Kg .::. 2.0 Lead as Pb mg/Kg 7.5
o,p-DDE ug/Kg (2.0 Mercury as Hg mg/Kg 0.03
p,p-DDE ug/Kg <2.0 Nickel as Ni mg/Kg 5.2
Dieldrin ug/Kg <.2.0 Selenium as Se mg/Kg 0.15
o,p-DDT ug/Kg (2.0 Silver as Ag mg/Kg 0.20
p,p-DDD ug/Kg <2,0 Thallium as Tl mg/Kg 0.07
p,p-DDT ug/Kg (2.0 Tin as Sn mg/Kg .2.7
-1-
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Mirex ug/i:g <.2.0 Zinc as Zn mg/i:g 22
Methoxychlor ug/i:g (4.0
Chlordane ug/Kg <.8.0
Toxaphene ug/Kg (40
Arochlor 1016 ug/i:g (40
Arochlor 1221 ug/Kg <. 40
Arochlor 1232 ug/Kg < 40
Arochlor 1242 ug/Kg (40
Arochlor 1248 ug/Kg .( 40
Arochlor 1254 ug/Kg '- 40
Arochlor 1260 ug/Kg (40
Arsenic as As mg/i:g 1.8
Beryllium as Be mg/Kg 0.23
-2-
.
.
~
SAMPLE. Bottom Sediment, Sample B, 12.05 PM
Lindane ug/Kg '-- 2.0 Cadmium as Cd mg/Kg 0.065
Heptachlor ug/i:g ( 2.0 Chromium as Cr mg/Kg 13
Aldrin ug/Kg ( 2.0 Copper as Cu mg/i:g 16
Heptachlor Epoxide ug/i:g Z 2.0 Lead as Pb mg/i:g 10
o,p-DDE ug/i:g <..2.0 Mercury as Hg mg/i:g 0.03
p,p-DDE ug/i:g Z 2.0 Nickel as Ni mg/i:g 11
Dieldrin ug/i:g < 2.0 Selenium mg/i:g 0.16
o,p-DDD ug/i:g ( 2.0 Silver as Ag mg/i:g 0.25
Endrin ug/i:g <. 2.0 Thallium as Tl mg/i:g 0.18
o,p-DDD ug/i:g <. 2.0 Tin as Sn mg/Kg 2.8
p,p-DDT ug/i:g <. 2.0 Zinc as Zn mg/Kg 120
Mirex ug/i:g < 2.0
Methoxychlor ug/i:g <. 4.0
Chlordane ug/Kg t..... 8.0
Toxaphene ug/Kg <.40
Arochlor 1016 u.g/ Kg < 40
Arochlor 1221 ug/Kg <.40
Arochlor 1232 ug/Kg <.40
Arochlor 1242 ug/Kg < 40
Arochlor 1248 ug/Kg (.40
Arochlor 1254 ug/i:g Z 40
Arochlor 1260 ug/Kg ( 40
Arsenic as As mg/i:g 1.7
Iteryllium as Be mg/i:g 0.50
-3-
SAMPLE: Bottom Sediment, Sample C, 12.25 PM
ANAL YTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Lindane ug/!::g <:. 2.0 Cadmium as Cd mg/!::g 0.080
Heptachlor ug/!::g <.. 2.0 Chromium ali Cr mg/Kg 12
Aldrin ug/!::g (.2.0 Copper as Cu mg/!::g 12
Heptachlor Epoxide ug/!::g < 2.0 Lead ali Pb mg/!::g 10
o,p-DDE ug/Kg <:. 2.0 Mercury as Hg mg/Kg 0.04
p,p-DDE ug/Kg <.. 2.0 Nickel as Ni mg/!::g 8.5
Dieldrin ug/!::g <.. 2.0 Selenium as Se mg/Kg 0.18
o,p-DDD ug/Kg ( 2.0 Silver as Ag mg/Kg 0.20
Endrin ug/Kg ( 2.0 Thallium as T1 mg/!::g 0.18
o,p-DDT ug/!::g <.. 2.0 Tin ali Sn mg/!::g 3.6
p,p-DDD ug/!::g :. 2.0 Zinc as Zn mg/Kg 43
p,p-DDT ug/Kg <. 2.0
Hirex ug/Kg <.. 2.0
Methoxychlor ug/Kg '- 4.0
Chlordane ug/Kg c. 8.0
Toxaphene ug/Kg .:, 40
Arochlor 1016 ug/Kg <.. 40
Arochlor 1221 ug/Kg " 40
Aroch1or 1232 ug/Kg \40
Aroch1or 1242 ug/Kg <- 40
Aroch1or 1248 ug/Kg (..40
Arochlor 1254 ug/Kg \. 40
Aroch1or 1260 ug/!::g (40
A't'senic as As mg/Kg 4.2
Beryllium as Be mg/Kg 0.44
-4-
. .
SAMPLE, Bottom Sediment, Sample D, 1100 PM
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Lindane ug/Kg ( 2.0 Cadmium mg/Kg 6.8
Heptachlor ug/Kg .( 2.0 Chromium as Cr mg/Kg 0.25
Aldrin ug/Kg (.2.0 Copper as Cu mg/Kg 12
Haptachlor Epoxide ug/Kg < 2.0 Lead as Pb mg/Kg 9.5
o,p-DDE ug/Kg .( 2.0 Mercury as Hg mg/Kg 0.14
p,p-DDE ug/Kg /2.0 Selenium as Se mg/Kg 0.18
"-
Dieldrin ug/Kg <.2.0 Silver as Ag mg/Kg 0.10
o,p-DDD ug/Kg /...2.0 Thallium as Tl mg/Kg 0.08
Endrin ug/[g < 2.0 Nickel as Ni mg/Kg 5.0
o,p-DDT ug/Kg .(2.0 Tin as Sn mg/[g 3.2
p,p-DDD ug/[g <2.0 Zinc as Zn mg/[g 33
p,p-DDT ug/[g < 2.0
Mirex ug/Kg <.. 2.0
Methoxychlor ug/Kg <( 4.0
...... Chlordane ug/[g <. 8.0
Toxaphene ug/Kg < 40
Arochlor 1016 ug/Kg <..40
Arochlor 1221 ug/Kg (40
Arochlor 1232 ug/Kg (40
Aroch1or 1242 ug/Kg (40
Arochlor 1248 ug/Kg <.40
Arochlor 1254 ug/Kg (.40
Arochlor 1260 ug/[g <.40
Arsenic as As mg/[g 3.3
Beryllium as Be mg/[g 0.23
-5-
The sample's criteria tested was for Bulk Sediment
Analysis as per request of the lead agency, Southold Town
Board.
It was noted that the numerous regulatory agencies
involved in this DEIS have in fact no standards for the
acceptability of potential contaminants that are to be found
in dredge spoil.
Contacted werel Mr. Alex Lechich, Area
Manager of the U.S.D.O.A., Mr. Larry Enoch of the N.Y.S.D.D.S.,
.
Coastal Management Program, Mr. Dennis Cole,.of the Bureau of
Regulatory Affairs at the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and various staff
members of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Wastes at
N.Y.S.D.E.C.
Particularly during conversation with Mr.
Enoch, who is a dredging specialist with N.Y.S.D.O.S. Coastal
Management Program it was noted that even though standards
have been examined for disposal in the L.I. Sound, no standards
have been set for upland disposal.
With this the staff of
the Land Use Company then contacted Mr. Steven Congdon of
the New England Division of the U.S.D.O.A. in Waltham,
Massachusetts, who supplied us with the following information.
With the absence of definitive knowledge of pollution
effects or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredge
~poil at disposal sites the following chemical and physical
parameters are called for in the review of a disposal action
or what conditions will be placed on the disposal of the
dredged material.
Dredged material sediment ~s classified
-6-
""l
.
.
as follows:
A CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III
Percent oil and
grease (hexane
extract) 0.2 0.2-.75 . 7 5
Percent volatile
(NED mehtod) 5 5-10 10
Percent water 40 40-60 60
Percent silt-clay 60 60-90 90
Class I sediments are often relatively coarse-grained with
high solids content, volatile solids, oil and grease, heavy
metals, and potential pollutant concentrations are low.
Class I sediment based on a case-by-case subjective evaluation
of the dredge site and/or metals concentration.
Class I
materials include non-recent and recent sediments which are
suitable for capping materials at open water dump sites,
for habitat creation projects, or rehandling for productive
uses including beach nourishment and land fill cover based
on the evaluation.
Class II sediments are often relatively fine-graded with
moderate solids content.
Class II materials may contain
a moderate amount of potential pollutants, volatile solids,
oil and grease, and metals, at levels often sufficient to be
a cause for concern.
A subjective evaluation of the dredge
site and metals is needed to designate this material as either
"non-degrading" or "potentially degrading".
Potentially
-7-
degrading Class II material will be treated as Class III
material.
On the other hand, this evaluation may show
that some Class II material is suitable for habitat creation
projects, capping Class III material, and landfill cover.
Class III sediments are usually fine-graded with low solids
.contents. These materials often contain high levels of
potential pollutants, volatile solids, oil and grease, and
metals. Class III sediments may be judged "potentially degrading"
or "potentially hazardous" based on the relative concen-
trations of pollutant constituents. The probability for Class
III sediments being "t~xic" .to marine bottom fauna may be
high. Subjective evaluation of metals and other pollutants,
and objective review of bioassay and/or bio-accumulation test
results, may be required to determine the suitability of
Class III material for open water disposal at Long Island
Sound regional disposal areas.
As a general policy, Class III material will not be
dumped at regional disposal sites unless it is capped with
suitable Class I or Class II material. Therefore, the
conditions under which Class III material may be dumped
may include both temporal and seasonal restrictions relating
Co the availability of suitable material for capping or
alternative management techniques directed towards the goal
of maximum environmental protection. In addition, there may
be certain circumstances under which open water disposal may be
-8-
.
.
prohibited.
'-
.... ,'~.
Statistical analysis of metals data on sediments developed
by the Corps of Engineers from numerous New En~laftd ports
and harbors, as well as non-spoil sediments from the vicinity of
open water disposal areas, suggest the following operational
limits are appropriate to enable confirmation of the sediment
class designations described above. Average and range
values for metals in Central'Long Island Sound sediments
are included for comparative purposes.
In general, the
Corps of Engineers data shows that high concentration of
metals appear in the sediments of highly industrialized
ports and harbors.
Central Sound Level of Contanination
Sediment Average
(ppm dry basis) Range Low Moderate High
Hg .05 .05 0.5 0.5-1.5 1.5
Pb 27.8 6-63 100 100-200 200
Zn 87.8 2,3-214 200 200-400 400
As 10 10-20 20
Cd 1.3 1-2.9 3 3-7 7
Cr 28.8 2-108 100 100-300 300
Cu 69.6 2-269 200 200-400 400
fH 11. 2 2-40.6 50 50-100 100
V 75 75-125 125
-9-
All concentrations are give in mg/litre. Concentrations
of PCB's of 1.0 parts per million (PPJM) will be considered
as confirmation of high contamination, DDT 0.5 PPM and
Dieldrin 0.1 PPM (dry basis).
With the aforementioned data, it can be assumed that the
levels of contaminants found in the proposed dredge spoil
can be classified as Class I material.
I'Class I spoil is
considered clean material acceptable for beach nourishment
or open water disposal at regional disposal sites or at a
site of similar lithologic background."
Interim Plan for
the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound,
New England River Basins Commission, August 1980.
It should
be noted that sample D revealed moderate levels of cadmium.
However, this area of the project contains deep water and
will not be subject to the 6' maintenence dredging program.
Additionally, it should be noted that said cadmium level
may be the result of limited past dredging in this area.
As stated previously, this section of the basin area contains
deep water and has not been the subject of sediment removal
operations.
As a result, a higher concentration of particles
and/or similar source material may have resulted in the
parameter found within this sample.
It should be also noted
that said parameter would still place the spoil material within
a Ilnan-degrading" classification suitable for use in habitat
creation projects such as intertidal marsh construction
activities.
-10-
.
.
The following table indicates data collected to date
on the bacteriological water quality in the subject area
by the N.Y.S.D.E.C.
Seen enclosed map for station locations.
Total Coliform HPN/IOOml
1-27-86
240
Station 2 Station 3 Tide Rainfall*
1-27 - 1. 46ft
4 240 high ebb 1-26 0.41"
-
3 3 low 2-2 - 0.38"
7 3 mid- no rain
flood
Date
Station 1
2-3-86
3
2-13-86
3
*Rainfall recorded at the South01d Police Station.
Fecal Coliform HPN/IOOml
Date Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Tide Rainfall*
1-27 - 1.46"
1-27-86 93 3 4 high ebb 1-26 - 0.41"
2-3-86 3 3 3 low 2-2 - 0.38"
2-13-86 3 7 3 mid- no rain
flood
Using a three tube HPN test, bacteriological water
quality at a station is acceptable if the median total coli-
form MPN/IOOml is 70 or less and no more than 10% of the
samples exceed at total coliform MPN/IOOml of 330; or if the
median fecal coliform MPN/IOOml is 14 or less and no mora
that 10% of the samples exceed a fecal coliform of MPN/IOOml
of 49.
Review of the aforementioned data would indicate
that the higher coliform counts were attributable to overland
-11-
(storm water) runoff entering the basin area in the vicinity
of station numbers I and 3 (Area adjacent to Sage Blvd. and
Tarpon Road Canal vicinity. See map for specific sample
locations). It should also be noted that significant rainfall
occurred during this period and that the said stations 1
and 3 were located adjacent to single family dwellings
and/or road improvements not incorporating storm water
management systems.
During the test period covered by data
analysis, an average of 3 vessels were moored in the subject
vicinity.
Conversations with various staff members of the N.Y.-
S.D.E.C. indicated that the Inter-State Shellfish Program
has recommended that all marinas be closed to shellfishing
during the summer months.
-12-
. .
1..L..,1::'1:- QUA.\'~ ~"'MI"'I-t: ""6f"fA.1'\D~--\..DV<<i\D~'"
- ~ ~14-p.t f'b"" -t:l twc t..-o rMlt:l\o.t'"f .
~
NO'e.'1'~
. rJa-ft:
~~r. lJD""'1'\Q~" ~M
~'"'{:.~~~ J:"~c;o.;- ,
'.'
.
i,'
, .
-'
.......
; i':'
.
" ..'
,
. . ,
.~' t::. '. .-
I 1.., ',',,'
.' :"t t". ~ ;' .
, \-
"
~o~~~~p
Olon
, '
:,:"1 !
. ~'i" ~~ .,' ~,
. 'l~;'A
:.' r' ...
. ,
\ -'.- i
':' '1-
II:
..,
'" i'" tf
: :
.
. I',
o ) \ Ii,
.
; .,1.
/'
"j
..
"
"
, ,
.I .,
~' ..
r
f
\I
.
. ,"
.f'"". .
" .
'.~ I
, ,
~ I. 'l.
, . ,
.
- :
-, ,
. . ~: I~ I.
.~:~" :' ",~ .-
0,1 ,. I
:;\ }' I,' .
'.'
. .,
"
n i'
(' '
,',.\
" '. I
" ..-','
,
\ I 'fj,
.,r'
... .,'
~, , ....
, ,
. " "
, ,
, '
I,
"\, ';'
"
.;u'
. .
.:1"U~. \..M.lO -.U!)e-Ul..-w.OINCa..~\Jf:"~._.N.'r -"~:'~-=lllrj..::~-
.UNTY OF SUFFOLK
.
// //
/Jv]--'t..-'7"J 'U?--'~ "
{If}. I-'&cy It-? l1S
fl c: ~/~ t'C
%.<<Y?!:'c..v
RECEIVED
MAR 1 8 1986
To.." C""rl< Southold
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
LEE E. KOPPELMAN
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
March 17, 1986
Mr. F. M. Flynn
P.O. Box 144
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Application of "Southport Development" (11269)
for a change of zone from "C" light industrial to
"M-I" General Multiple Residence,
Town of Southold (50-85-9).
Dear Mr. Flynn:
In response to your letter of 3/12/86 please be advised that in accordance
with established policy and procedure of the Suffolk County Planning Commission,
the above referenced can only be reconsidered upon submission of an amended
application. The Planning Commission only approved the zoning change subject to
use/developmental restrictions. If the zoning change is approved, and the
existing zoning remains in effect, petitioner will have to file special permit
applications with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the motel and marine use(s)
necessitating further Planning Commission consideration of such development
proposals. If the proposed zoning is enacted, the motel/restaurant use(s) will
require submission of applications for a special permit, once again
necessitating Planning Commission consideration of such development proposals.
While the marina is a permitted use under the proposed "MB" zoning requirements,
the Commission determination clearly sets forth a limitation on any expansion of
such facility.
Any further interpretation of terminology set forth in the letter of
determination can only be offered by the Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
Lee E.Koppelman
::"~~z~~nn~L
Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
GGN: j k
Southold Town Board ~
cc:
VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
HAUPPAUGE. LL. NEW YORK 1 1786
(~16l360-5192
~
.
,it~~:~z~?//
/,,:7c7J;bAa,/~_ '
)'~ ?L 'U /' ~;;Ac'.a>.' A.
~~i./;tf/v- . / .
X-:;..~dL"d_
REaJ\I!:O
MAR 1 '7 G)6
F .M. Flynn
P. O. B. 144
Southold, NY 11971
7(jWft Omlr Stro 1I,c,4d
March 12, 1986
Mr. Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
County of Suffolk
Department of Planning
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, L. 1., NY 11788
Re: Application of "Southport Development" (#269) for a change of zoning
from 'C" Light Industry to "M - 1 " General Multiple Residence,
Town of Southold ( SD- 85- 9 )
Dear Mr. Newman:
I refer to the letter of August 8, 1985 regarding the subject application
and signed by you on behalf of Dr. Koppelman and the Planning Commission.
You realize, of course, that your letter is being used by Southport as an
endorsement of its entire project end apparently accepted as such by the
Town of Southold.
This virtually blanket approval of the project is so widely at variance
with the opinions you expressed on the occasion of our visit to your office,
and with the recommendations of other highly regarded and qualified planners
such as Frederick H. Reuter, .liCP, that I question whether the Commission
was fully aware of the facts involved and of the intensity of the planned uses.
It would also appear to me that your approval gives scant attention to the
safety ond welfare of the cOIDlaunity; to the project's effects on the
character of the neighborhood; to the impact on surrounding property
valueD and, perhaps even more important, to the deleterious effects on
the area's sensitive ecology. It appears that the subject property has
been singled out for a variety WId density of uses which benefit the
applicant at the expen' , 0:- surrounding owners and the neighborhood at .
large.
i'he facts of t.he matter 'Ire that the sul',;ect property consists of approx-
imately e upland acres and 3.'r;; acres of underwater land. The preposterous
nature of the application in demonstrated by the applicants stated intention:
to expand the dockage by approximately 5~; operate a marina up to industry
standards; build an 82 unit motel; build a 125 seat restaurant and continue
the operation of a pool and tennis club.
In its applications, Southport represents the entire property as being zoned
~ ~-11-&,.
-2-
for" C" Light Industry use. Our investigations indicate that the under-
yater land Yas never zoned for this use and inquiries of the town produced
no record of a required special exception for marina use in "C" zoning.
Thus, it is our position that, unless the applicant proves otherwise, the
use of the underwater land for marina use is illegal and should be terminated
rather than expanded. If our analysis proves correct, the entire basis
for the Southport Development application is false.
The exorbitant intensity of the proposed upland use is indicated by the
applicant's OEIS in yhich it is stated that the existing marina/boatyard
" encompasses the majority of the site ". Since the applicant states its
intention to "expand the marina" substantially, it is only logical that the
entire upland area yould be required for marina use. This is all the more
the case 6ince the property has a special exception for pool and tennis club
use on 2.1 acres of the 5~cre upland area. You may recall that at the time
of our discussion, you Yere in general agreement that the operation of a
modern lnarina required an upland area at least equal to the yater surface area
used for dockage.
It appears obviuos there is simply not enough upland area to accomodate the
proposed uses. This is particularly so Yhen it is realized that the property's
configuration precludcs the development of 2r acres included in the required
yet lands setback areas. Of the remaining 6~cres of upland, 2.1t acres is
allocated to the pool and tennis club. If the marina is to mect modern
requirements for winter storage, repairs and maintenance, 4! acres of upland
yould be a reasonable requirement. These calculations indicate there is no
available acreage for the construction of a mere 52 unit motel and a 125
seat restaurant.
De<;pite your recommendation to tne contrary, the applicant states that he
intends to expand the marina. His plans call for an increase from 91: slips
to 138 z slips, or 5c;j,. Further he intends to more than double the linear
footage of docks~ a matter of fact, the zoning places no limits on the
Ilnmber of g lips. Further the use of the ramp and of "high and dr.f" storage
could create " yall to yall" boats on the small embayment.. Perhaps the
Commission does not realize that the marina is accessible by a cnannel .
only 20 ft. in Yidth. Further, the bcams of the proposed slips range from
21 ft. to 12.5 ft. None of thc boats for yhich the slips are planned
can pass each otncr in a 20 ft. channel.
Sketches submitted by the oyner do not depict the overall impact of tne project
on the surrounding properties nor do they reveal that the proposed marina
is situated in an embayment the entire area of wnich is classified by the DEC
as tidal wetlands. The embayment is an ecologically sensitive area Yith
productive shellfish beds and nesting areas for water fowl. Further, the
surrounding upland is an important wildlife habitat area.
The embayment's configuration is actually that of five separate basins all
depending On the previously mentioned 20 ft. channel for the necessary flushing
.'
.
.
,
-3-
action. The construction of an enlarged marina and the more than doubling
of the footage of floating docks actually creates a series of weirs or dams
which will confine pollutants and serve to make sewers or sumps of
previously virtually pristine areas. Should you believe I exaggerate the
effects of pollution emanating from a marina, I suggest you read the recent
studies on the effects of marine bottom paints on shellfish and aquatic life
and check with the DEe on the recent oilspill at the subject property.
The applicant's plans also call for the dredging of 17,000 cu. yds. of
spoil which, in large part, he intends to deposit on existing wetlands.
The effect on other areas of the embayment and its resourses is not even
considered. Further, such dredging is represented as "maintenance". If,
as we believe, the present marina operation is illegal, it can hardly be
maintained.
One of the most important considerations affecting the proposed uses of the
site has apparently been overlooked by the Commission arriving at its
conclusion. The property is lOcated on Sage Boulevard some 1740 ft.
easterly from Rte. 25. Despite its grandiose name, Sage Boulevard is a private,
poorly paved R.O.VI. with an overall width of 16 ft. The applicant has only an
easement over the R.O.VI. and the land on both sides is owned by others over
the aforementioned 1700 ft. Furhter, the R.O.VI. is in such close proximity to both
fresh and saltwater wetland on both sides that it is not probable to assume
it could be widened.
Nevertheless, the applicant blithely presumes that Sage Boulevard will accomodate
2204 trips per day with 183 trips during the peak hour. Over one-half of
this count will be marina traffic consisting of trucks, tractor-trailers
an,l passenger vehicles all passing on a 16 ft. Right of Way without shoulders.
The traffic will average one vehicle every 20 seconds during peak hours and
one every 30 seconds night and day. Such a situation is obviously unsafe and
the TOwn of Soutbolll's consultant states tbat the existing access is unsatisfactory.
Finally, the others interested in this matter, (~ld in the proposed Master Plan
for the TOwn of Southold) and I would appreciate an explanation of your
interpretation of marine related uses. Certainly motels and restaurants arc
filore highway uses than marine related. They are more frequently found at desert
and mountain resorts or serving tranaient travelers than at marinas. As a
matter of fact, as I'm sure you know, the recent trend bas been to restrict
motels and restaurants from waterfront sites for a Variety of reasons not the
least of which is their potential for the polltion of wetland areas.
In Stlmmary, sl1bstant,hl arguments have been mustered against this application
by e.~perienceci planners and by the community at large. I have recited only
some of tbe factors influenCing these opinions. Under the circumstances, the
Department and Commission shoul<l certainly reap','n this matter, investigate my
statements and negate the appruval.
Very t'rU.ly. yours,
. '/ //
:/ -/ /'/'. /// /~
(/// /;()7' 1
, /.:. I _I I
F'/.l. Flyl'l, . -: ,. / \_
Copieo
Henry C. Weismann, Esq. P. O. B. 1123, Soutbold, NY 11971
Cbristopher Kelly, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Sbea & Kelley 33 West Second St.
P. O. B. 398 Riverbead, NY 11901
Town Board, Town of Soutbold Town Hall Main Rd., Soutbold, NY 11971
Board of Town Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Soutbold, NY 11971
Mr. Charles T. Hamilton state of NY D.E.C. Regulatory Affairs Unit. Suny-
Buildine 40 Rm. 219 Stonybrook, NY 11794
Henry G. Williams, Commissioner State of N.Y. D.E.C. 50 Wolp Rd.
Albany, NY 12223
Mr. William F. Barton N.Y.State Department of State, Albany, NY 12231
Assemblyman Joseph Sawicki, 206 Griffing Ave., P.O.B. 1060, Riverhead, NY l190l
Dr Martin Garrel,Cbairman of Town Conservation Advisory Counsel
Mrs Rutb Oliva, President of Nortb Fork Enviromenta1 Counsel
~ - -
JUDITH 1. TERRY
TO\v~ CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
March 111,1986
Southport Development
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to my letter of December 5, 1985 to Town
Planner David Emilita, copy of which was sent to you, with respect
to his review of the DEIS for Southport Development. This letter
stated that the expense for his review shall be reimbursed to the
Town.
Enclosed herewith is a copy of the voucher of Szepatowski
Associates, Inc. itemizing the cost for this DEIS review. Please
remit a check in the amount of $1,600.00 to this office at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
...,~
*d'cd J'j?-r
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosures (2)
cc: Planning Board/
David Emilita
.
.
. '4 ~ ".
c ~..oI(
a.,',;,rt.
. .... .?9.1,1.th9.J-.4....... ..... ..... ........ ......, N. Y.,...... ..J.ij.I1<l\U;y......... HI..e.Q.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr.
>..-..-~-._-' -.-.
\;-'~ ~.:' r-'
" "
i'
I. . I
To. ::'.: .~.z "'p.<:'-.~~':':~.~.~. .~~.s~~ ~.<:,-.t~:o!.. .~!1~.:.......................... Claimant
, -",
, --
, I~r:r'
:j . ~ "- ')
Address.. ~.~.. ~ ~::.~.':?'~.~.: .~~~..:: ':~~.'!.~ .'.. :!.'::':~:.~~:-:~. ~.. :::~...... ~~. ~.~.5
.
Progress Billing:
P~~ ~"uiew ~f t-h" nPT" "nllt-h ,~t- I
as per Town Board Resolution. I
Principal Planner 10 hours @ $50 00 $ 500 00
Pnu; ,t-~1 n""iCTl1pr ?? ~ hnllr" ~ 4n nn I 11 nn nn
I
II I $1600 00
STH 86.1 S Janaury 1986
Fed. I. D. No. ................................
or Soc. Security No. ....................
The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the
(Cross out Onfd
foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and
that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. .
Dated ......f.g.lJ~.u.".ry...}..............., 19..?~...... .lB.~.~.d..\Sfj/t~K:~.....!J.k:.P..
,.j Signature
:>> -~
:>> n -y (j)
~ - - -PJ <: ~ ~
p. - ~. .::> f-'- (j)
0
.'<, ~. :El S :c (1) N 0
~
'~\ '" '" '" .PJ :'. 8 ~
p. P- P- -rj (1) = .." : 'd
c' " .,< rj -. "" PJ ==
?'-. V'
-- -- :>u 0 - r::r ... ct
'.,":> .> = 0
.rj en v> ~ t:= 0
~'; .. '0 ... ~.
~ '" (j) -
,''{ 'cO tJ r_ '" ... ~ r-' --
'~ f'O <
~ 'f-' :rj M \;3 f-'- r-'
\ \' :'" .(1) H -. '"
~ C ... ..
- . ~ .0 .Ul (j) ,,~: i:I ... :r> 0
,-"-' -0 '" 0
. (j) - Ul .."
: \J' l .... =
'" 1:11 Ul
'0 :to (j) 0 ~.
- l" " :0 .1--'" 0 1:11 i:I (] ......
. \ :'\ of-' c '" Q. f-'- ....
"
n .... :" . f-' ct PJ <: 0
'" .'- "I-'-::r' ct '- -
ff . :~ :::> CO 8 " ~
.cO 0 Ul
"'" .-rj -.r:;.
ct
H
-.
"
r--
..
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR Of VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
i
-
)
December 5, 1985
David Emilita, Town Planner
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Dave:
Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
The Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on
December 3, 1985, adopted a resolution directing you to review the
Draft Envi ronmental I mpact Statement for the change of zone petition
of Southport Development, as requested by the Southold Town Planning
Board. Actual expense to the Town of Southold for reviewing this
DEIS shall be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Councilman Stoutenburgh would like you to notify him when you
conduct this review so he may be present.
Very truly yours,
~r--.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
cc: Planning Board
Counci Iman Stoutenburgh
South port Development
I
~
~
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 1986
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Town Cr..,l,- c;outhold
March 5, 1986
Southold Town Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Subject:
CAC comments on Addendum to DEIS for Southport Development
Dear Board Members:
Our comments remain much the same for this project although
the addendum clarifies several items. In what follows, we sum-
marize our criticism of the DEIS and then list specific items,
page by page.
We still find the maps misleading. One glance at Exhibit B
shows that the area for the complex contains excessive blacktop
which, if allowed, would be ruinous for the surrounding areas.
It's hard to believe that the requested zoning would eat up virtually
all the usable land without providing for any open space, but
that is exactly what is indicated.
Where are the contracts here for Greenport water, and what
are the plans for REAL LIFE sewage disposal? This development
clearly needs more than a simple denitrification system when marina
users come onto land and use the facilities. The calculated
effluent is plainly a "fudge" to get in under the amounts that
would legally require sewage treatment under County Department
of Health regulations. Why not be honest and admit that the
20000 or 25000 gpd level will require a hookup to Greenport sewage
and request that with the zoning change? Are the applicants
worried about zoning approval if they are honest about this?
Now a few page-by-page comments:
1) p. 11 Wha t are true costs to the town here for roads,
maintenance?
2) p. 14 What specific changes are required for Sage Blvd.?
3) p. 18 Just where will these dredge spoils be deposited
for eventual removal to upland?
4) p. 19 Exactly what is meant by "wetlands creating"?
Has this group of developers never done this
before? We seriously doubt that!
I
Page 2
.~
5) p. 20 If the typical cost of a 32 foot craft, some
$100,000. to $500,000. ,doesn't make them "luxury"
or "elite", what do you call them? Even "yuppies"
don't qualify as boat owners for such things.
6) p. 41 Of course there were no scallops this year! The
conclusion for recent times is not justified in
the report.
7) p. 50 A multiply-sampled one year survey of fish species
is called for, especially for juveniles.
8) p. 58 How much fertilizer use is "improper"? Are you
going to fertilize the blacktop, or what?
9) p. 26 Estimated water use by accessory lavatories is
ridiculously low. Some 60 flushes @10 gallons
or even 120 flushes @ 5 gallons per flush is much
too low when you think about all the "elite"
marina users coming ashore to use the heads all
day every day. An honest figure would best be
obtained from Carl Darenberg or Henry Colombi
at Montauk.
10) p. 59 Just how are your going to reduce illegal dumping?
Patrols? How will you enforce, or will this just
another burden on the town?
11) p. 65-66 There is not "other income" to the marina included
in the figures presented. Surely the sales of
gear and equipment should be figured? Also aren't
the operating expenses a bit on the low side?
One is always suspicious of figures that are so
beautifully rounded off, like $200,000. It really
makes the final figure of $143,000. net look far
too low.
We can only hope this criticism will be addressed frankly
in the final EIS so that the Town can finally act on the proposal
and evaluate it for true merit. Thus far, the EIS hardly presents
the proposal in a favorable light. In fact it makes a rather
poor case for a zoning change.
(',
.GJ(.
~~ -j - 1./ '-1 ' /'
/ I) "-~/CC-(./X--' /:-- ~/" t<..Jc'C-::_c ~
.---"",
/ .
~/
Dr. Martin H. Garrell. Chairman
Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council
.
Mt3
1986
LEGAL NOTICE
RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM TO DRAFT EIS - SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
NOT ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of
Southold is in receipt of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement of Southport Development with respect to their petition for a
change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple
Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south
side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard,
Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the
Southold Town Board.
Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of
Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New
York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986. The
public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of
Southport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board, and
will reconvene at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, New York, at which time all persons will be given an
opportunity to be heard with respect to same.
DATED: February 25, 1986.
JUDITH T. TERRY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
* * *
PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 6, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT
OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN
ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.
Copies to the following:
The Long Island Traveler-Watchman
The Suffolk Times
Town Board Members
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Southold Town Planning Board
Board of Town Trustees
South port Development
Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
N.Y.S. Department of State
...
..
RECEIVED
.
!L.~--t?~-:c'?7L~'t<
::-I/,/-'- _ ", - .:<'/)/?"
y~~~- ~ ~~~~ ~
FEB 2 -1 1986
TWOMEY. LA'rHAM. SHEA & KJ;~LLEY
Town C:a.fr 5curhold
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P. O. BOX 398
RIVERB]~AD. .N~~W YORK lIOOI
THOMAS A. TWOMEY. JR
STEPHEN B. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. It!
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
516-727-2180
9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11937
516-324-1200
AMY B. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM'
MAUREEN T. lICCIONE
'ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
AND FLORIDA
February 21, 1986
The Town Board
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Southport Development
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board:
I write this letter on behalf of Henry Weismann and
Frank Flynn in response to certain statements made by
the attorney for Joseph Fishetti, Jr., in his letter to
you of February 4, 1986.
At page 2, counsel states that Southport has made
application to the Board "merely for a change of zone
that anticipates the change in use proposed for this
site by the recently completed town master plan". He
concludes that given the contents of the proposed master
plan the need for the applicant to develop extensive
data in the EIS process is eliminated. This conclusion
is wrong for several reasons.
First, the master plan proposal to date and as
presented at the Hamlet Meeting would have the proposed
southport site designated for marine business use. This
use does not include motels or hotels as either a
permitted use or a special exception use. This was
pointed out by the Town's planning consultant in his
comments on the DEIS. The request for a change to the
zone o~ g2neral multiple residence in the current zoning
code would permit boats, hotels and motels with special
exception, but would not permit restaurants. Thus, the
proposal neither conforms to the requirements of a zone
C:re, L-I.
61. - c1.. 4. - ~ <,0
The Town Board
TovlO of Southold
February 21, 1986
Page Two
existing in the current zoning code nor the proposed
zoning for the site under the new master plan.
Therefore, contrary to counsel's opinion, it cannot
be said that the master plan data supports this proposal
eliminating the need for the applicant to provide such
extensive data in the DEIS.
Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the Southport
proposal was permitted by the existing or proposed
zoning, the applicant would not be relieved from
justifying the proposal from an environmental and
economic point of view in the DEIS. Our consultants,
Frederick Reuter and Larry Penny, have concluded that
there are serious flaws with the DEIS, in fact so
serious, that to allow the DEIS to proceed through
public comments to the FEIS without being rewritten and
substantially revised, would substantially undermine the
SEQRA process. The same conclusion is reached by the
Town's Conservation Advisory Counsel, which in its
February 4, 1986 memo to the Town Board states "the
serious flaws and ommissions in the DEIS render it
inadequate and possibly illegal".
Third, counsel's argument that a generic EIS is
appropriate for this project is totally without merit.
As the SEQRA handbook states at page B46, with regards
to "Rezoning and SEQRA":
There are many situations where a specific
project and rezoning issue are so tightly
interwoven that is is impractical to treat
the generic land use oriented concerns
separately. Then it is useful to consider the
rezoning as though it is one of the approvals
necessary for the project.
It is clear in this instance that the developer is not
proposing a change of zone to allow any number of a
variety of different projects. The developer has ~
specific project in mind which would involve numerous
...
.
.
.
The Town Board
Town of Southold
February 21, 1986
Page Three
intesive uses on a single site. He knows specifically
how many motel units, how large a restaurant and how
many boat slips he wishes for his new facility. Under
SEQRA, a generic impact statement is simply not
appropriate.
At page 3 of his letter, counsel quotes page B45 of
the SEQRA handbook in support of his argument that a
generic statement would be appropriate. However,
counsel fails to quote the circumstances favoring such
treatment. The number one circumstance listed which
would favor such treatment is when "the applicant has no
specific project planned" (SEQRA Handbook page B45).
Here, that is simply not the case and a generic
statement is insufficient.
At page 3 of his letter, counsel states, referring
to intervenors' consultant, Frederick Reuter, "if the
North Carolina planning consultant who critisized the
D~IS had been sent the master plan update background
studies, most of the questions he has raised would have
been answered." In the first instance, Mr. Reuter had
before him the background studies, the proposed master
plan, and the proposed zoning code. All his comments
were made in the context of those documents. Further,
a.s can be seen from a review of r4r. Reuter's comments on
the master plan and proposed zoning for the site that
were submitted to the Board at the Hamlet meeting on
February 14, 1986, the background studies and master
plan do not support the subject proposal being located
in a low density residential area on such a small
embayment with significant environmental constraints.
Perhaps counsel should review those background studies
again himself.
Second, to the extent that counsel implies that Mr.
Reuter is not familiar with Long Island and in
particular east end zoning, rlanning and environmental
issues, he might review Mr. Reuter's professional
resume attached to both his comments on the D~IS and his
comnents on the proposed master plan. If he did he
would find that Mr. Reuter has been involved in
planning issues on Long Island for thirty-six years and
The Town Board
Town of Southold
February 21, 1986
Page Four
has worked to devolop planning analyes, master plans,
zoning codes, subdivision regulations and other studies
for the Long Island municipalities of Quogue, Riverhead,
Garden City, Huntington, Islip, Lindenhurst Village,
vi llaae of Port Hashi naton, Town of East Hampton, ann in
fact, he was the drafter of the original master plan far
the Town of Southampton, where counsel resides.
The applicant's late attempts to rationalize the
inadequacies of the DEIS submitted must not be accepted
by this Board. If, as the applicant suggests, he will
not be responding to certain comments on the DEIS, he
runs the risk as does this Board of any subsequent
zoning action being litigated for failure to comply ~ith
the requirements of SEQRA. This would certainly not be
in the Board's, the community's, or the applicant's best
interests.
Intervenors would prefer and would submit that it
would be in the Board's best interest to have a full ann
complete environmental review of the project at this
early date, so that all issues with regard to this
project can be aired simultaneously with the review of
the proposed zoning and master plan for the community.
Sincerely,
/!utrJ/J/il
Christopher Kelley
CK/mp
.
~~'?? /}jd-a?~
/7br?;;-b-rf-~.:d.
'"
",
/JM;hh/ c/ikAd7';?
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
HOBART ROAD
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971
516~765-29!'54
RfCEMD
FEB 1 3 1986
February 12, 1986
TOW!' eM SouttIoId
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Master Plan - Marine Business
and Marine Recreation Districts
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members:
This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between
the intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed
Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to
transient motels in general and Young's Marina (Southport
Development) in particular.
When Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning
Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft
Proposed Zoning Regulations, dated April, 1985, prepared by
Raymond, Parrish, pine and Weiner. At that time, both the
Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed
transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was
in favor of the project and recommended the zoning change
to the Town Board.
During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State-
ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us
that Mr. Tasker, the Town ~ttorney, was make possible revisions
to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we
should contact him to inqUire whether Southport Development
was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In
discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine
Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being
revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the
Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business
district this use was being removed from the Code.
,
f
Southole Town Boare
February 12, 1986
Page 2
We then contacted the Planning Board, through ~~r. Emilita,
and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our
understanding that the Zoning ~aps were being revised to
reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and
that the Town Board, in support of the Naster Plan, in-
tended to transfer certain properties, including South-
port Development, into the Marine Recreation district.
It seems, however, that the maps were released to the
Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning
Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on
sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt
and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine
Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end
of Hobart Road in Southold.
I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning
Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation
district to better reflect the intent of the Master plan
in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and
the planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site
is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels.
1\.\
\ ~~ry trul\ yo~rs,
, 1"\ i \
\} .\ I' '\
.~.v u \ I . \
, i '-
Joseph Fischetti, .Jr.,. r.,
JF:mdh
cc: Southold Town Planning Board
-
/-
.
.
OJ iaSt;
(jL0J./'J<~< lli;Jr
f-'R(lFl:SSIOIJAI" ENGINEER
HOBART ROAD
SOUTH OLD, NEW YORK 11971
516 -765 ~2954
February 12, 1986
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Master Plan - Marine Business
and Marine Recreation Districts
Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members:
This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between
the intent of the Master plan and the current Proposed
Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to
transient motels in general and Young's Marina (Southport
Development) in particular.
\ihen Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning
Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft
Proposed Zoning Regulations, dated April, 1985, prepared by
Raymond, Parrish, pine and Weiner. At that time, both the
Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed
transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was
in favor of the project and recommended the zoning change
to the Town Board.
During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State-
ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us
that Mr. Tasker, the Town ~ttorney, was make possible revisions
to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we
should contact him to inquire whether Southport Development
was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In
discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine
Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being
revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the
Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business
district this use was being removed from the Code.
,/
.
.
Southold Town Board
February 12, 1986
Page 2
We then contacted the Planning Board, through ~~r. Emili ta,
and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our
understanding that the Zoning ~aps were being revised to
reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and
that the Town Board, in support of the Master Plan, in-
tended to transfer certain properties, including South-
port Development, into the Marine Recreation district.
It seems, however, that the maps were released to the
Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning
Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on
sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt
and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine
Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end
of Hobart Road in Southold.
I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning
Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation
district to better reflect the intent of the Master plan
in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and
the Planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site
is one of the most suitable for trans.ient res~~ motels.
'\ '\ (\ .
V~r~ tr~.l.Y\~fu..rs,i\
' ',\ '. \';
; \' 'j,
\.i v,' \'\ \ ::,\, '_
" \ \"'/\\
JOSeph Fischetti, ,\., \p. F.
\i
JF:mdh
cc: southold
Town Planning Board ~
1 .~.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
February 4, 1986
1 r. <:. ~"~('"
rt: R 1 \; \'jOO
r I._V
8:00 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE
OF ZONE FROM "C" TO "M-1" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT.
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
* * *
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It is now 8: 00 o'clock and we have a scheduled public
hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement by Southport Development.
Councilman Schondebare will do the official reading.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of
the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8: 00 P.M., Tuesday, February
4, 1986, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect
to their petition for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1"
General Multiple Residence, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the
south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, ont he westerly side of Sage Boulevard,
Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having
the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel
complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town
Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular
business hours. Dated: January 7, 1986. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk."
I have an affidavit of publication of that notice on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board by the Town Clerk Judith Terry. I have an affidavit of publication of the
said notice in The Long Island Traveler-Watchman, and an affidavit of publication
of said notice in The Suffolk Times. I have in the file a copy of the Draft Environ-
menal Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold, New York.
I have in the file comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated
January 17, 1986 submitted on behalf of the interventors Henry Weismann and Frank
Flynn.
I have in the file the comments by our Town Planner Szepatowski Associates
Inc., which in reality is Dave Emilita, the Town Planner.
I have a letter in the file also from Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn, Attorneys,
dated February 4, 1986 with reference to Southport Development Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. This is dated today so I think I should read this one. It's five
pages long.
Page 2 - Southf-~rt Development DE IS
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Maybe just the comment, Jay, about the time they need
to reply.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: They would like two weeks from today to reply.
Have you seen this? Mr. Flynn, do you know anything about it?
;,ii<.. FRANK FLYNN: No.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I'm going to read it to you then. "Dear Members
of the Board:" Unless we make copies. Do you want me to read it now? If I
made copies and gave it to you now, rather than my reading it here. Maybe you
won't catch something that I'm saying?
MR . FLYNN: I should like to have ample time to study this five page letter rather'
than have it read to me and I'd like ample time to respond to the letter if necessary.
I consider this a bit of an ambush to present this letter at this time when all comments
were supposed to have come in approximately two weeks ago.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I think, speaking to the Supervisor, and with the
consent of the other Board members, what we will do, is recess the public hearing
after the public comment tonight and then reconvene it for comments at a later
date. That way you'll have a chance to look at it and see it.
MR. FLYNN: That will not preclude me from making comments this evening?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: No.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We'll probably recess to our next Town Board meeting in
three weeks, and it's an afternoon meeting.
MR. FLYNN: I defer to advice of counsel.
MR. HENRY WEISMANN: We'll have an opportunity to respond to any supplemental
material.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: And the Town Clerk will make this available for you.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: The remainder in the file pertains to the change
of zone and not the SEQR process which is what we're discussing here tonight.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we've heard the
this meeting and the comments that were made.
to represent the applicant?
official reading of the notice of
Is there anyone here would like
ANTHONY CONFORTI: I'm the author of that letter. I'm from the firm of Conforti.
Gordon, Reale and Shenn. I have to look at the letter because we've just formed
our firm very recently. I'm not going to give a presentation tonight. The purpose
of that letter was to urge members of the Board to conduct this public hearing, which
you are doing. It is our intention to respond to the detailed requests made by the
planning consultant and to file at some point in time after all public comment has
been heard. after we have gotten feedback from the Town as to what you consider
essential to be addressed, we will file our final environmental impact statement. We
are here tonight to hear comments from the public and at a later time, if it's approp,"iat€
and if it is mandated by this Board, we will certainly respond. Thank you.
Page 3 - Southport Developm. DEIS
.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else here would like to speak on behalf
of the applicant? (No response.) Anyone like to speak in opposition to the applicant?
Sir.
HENR Y WEISMAN N: I would just like to know that after the petitioner submits their
final, or their corrected and completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement that
interested citizens will have the opportunity thereafter to submit comments directed
toward it, as provided by the SEQR procedures? Is that the purpose of the adjourn-
ment?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, as long as we keep the public hearing-nas long as we
don't close this public hearing.
MR. WEISMANN: You will give us an opportunity after the filing of the corrected
and completed impact statement, to have our people submit comments with regard to
it writing?
SUPERVI SOR MURPHY: Our Town Attorney is sick tonight. so I can't give you a
legal interpretation. Dave, can you comment on that?
DAVID EMILlTA, Town Planning Consultant: On the question of the submission of
additional data, I think the gaps in the data are sufficient enough to render the
additional submission as a supplement to the draft, rather than as a final impact
statement.
MR. WEISMANN: That obviously leaves us in a position where we can comment on
it after the supplement. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mr. Flynn?
MR. FRANK M. FLYNN, Tarpon Drive, Southold: I'd like to make some statements
with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport
Development and although they may be rather blunt, I think they may be of assistance
to the Board, certainly of interest to the Board, and possibly may save some taxpayers
money. What we have here, if I may consult my notes---we have had what was
supposedly a Draft Environmental Study submitted on the part of Southport Develop-
ment, which apparently is going to be surplanted by an entirely new organization.
This doesn't surprise me. The original statement submitted is, in my opinion, a
cynical travesty, replete with errors and arising from ignorance or desire to mislead
and misinform. I have a point by point rebuttal of the original Draft Environmental
Impact Study in my bag. I shan't take the time or the Town Board to go down it
point by point, because in a way Mr. Emilita has at least partially done so already.
In the statement every basic premise is incorrect and I'm prepared to provide it
from the public record, but I would like to say also that this is not my personal
opinion. This is not my unsupported opinion. If the public and the media were
to inspect the Town's records, there are, within the records, a detailed report by
distinguished Planner Mr. Fred Reuter and a Naturalist Lawrence Penny, on file
in opposition. Perhaps more persuasive the Board has the belated report. and I
say belated l-eport, filed with the Town by Szepatowski Associates, identified as
Mr. Emilita's firm. I criticize that report in a sense as being somewhat vague as
to what prompted the report. There's a reference to a meeting as of January 13th,
but I would like eventually to find out where the meeting was held, who was present,
and generally what the background of the meeting was. However, Mr. Emilita's report
I must admit. makes devastating comments on the report prepared for Southport
Development by the Land Use Company, Mr. Bowman, and it questions its quality,
its dUI-ability and cites critical lack of supporting evidence. Now this, in my opinion,
Page 4 - South}Jurt Development DEIS
is sufficient of a report like this is trifling with the time of the Town Board and
the taxpayer's money. But to go further, there is support to a particular aspect
of Mr. Emilita's report that I don't think anybody has called to the attention of
the Town Board, notably, that there has been a recent serious oil spill in the area
of this property and it is certainly dilaterious to the environment. There has been
no mention made of that. Didn't I not know better I would consider the arrogance
and the smug complacency of Southport in submitting such a cursory and legally
inadequate statement as evidence that could possibly lead one to believe that the
applicant was assured that the DEIS was a proforma thing and that the approval
of his application was certain. This, of course, I can't believe in the Town of
Southold because it will be a denial of due process or deny the public the right
to comment in detail on this sort of thing. However, the smug assurance with
which this report, this this charade was projected to the Town Board certainly
gives rise to questions that should be answered. Now, I believe and I am prepared
to cite the evidence for it, that the basic premise all the way through of Southport's
report, as presented by Mr. Bowman, is incorrected. My examination of the public
records in Riverhead, my examination of the records in Town Hall, and my queries
of Town Hall lead me to believe that the existing marina, in large part, is an illegal
operation. I'm prepared to recite chapter and verse and provide you with any deeu
transaction on this property, the chronology of the whole thing. Now, should this
be the case, any petition or application such as this, and any application to maintenanc'
dredge an area that is illegal to begin with, is really futile. Now, I request the
constituted authorities of this Town to investigate this as a very serious question.
Now, other than that we have other things of interest. Even were this not the
case Mr. Bowman stated on Page 9 of his report, which is available to everybody.
and I would encourage anybody interested in this to consult it, that the existing
marina operation encompasses the majority of the site. Now, the existing marina
operation is reputed to have 91 slips. If the indefinite expansion referred to in
different numbers on different pages were to be in the vicinity of 130 slips, it
would be an approximate 50% increase in the marina operation, and consequently
from my knowledge of marina operations, would require the entire upland even wen,
it legal. Now, to presume that it is possible to fill 82 motel units on excess land
over and above that required for the marina operation, when by definition the
entire upland is required for the marina operation, is contempt of me, it's contempt
of the citizenry of this town and certainly it's contempt as far as the Town Boa,'d
is concerned. I would say that if the Town Board really desires to treat this matter
in a fairminded manner and act in good conscience, in view of the serious questions
raised as to the suitability of the site for the purposes for which application was
made and which would also be included in the Master Plan, any action on the Maste,'
Plan for this area be deferred until the serious questions herein raised are answered.
What you have on the part of Bowman, and what you have on the part of Emilita
are an indictment of the background studies done for the Master Plan. The Maste,'
Plan is inadequate. The Master Plan has not considered the serious affect on the
environment and the economy arising from this proposed use, and were this thins!
to be stampeded through--and when I say this thing I refer to the Master Plan-
the end result would be to destroy the economy of an area and the environment
of an area. At this point I think I've said sufficient to give you some food fot-
thought. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? Marty?
MART I N GARRELL, Chairman, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council: I felt
that on projects of this sort that we would weigh in with some kind of a CAC opinIOn.
Also, because part of my work, my research as an energy and environmental problem
.
Page 5 - South port Development DEIS
.
solver, if you will, a consultant at Brookhaven Lab I do this kind of thing for
a living and I've worked for a long time with environmental impact statements,
both EIS's that I've written and EIS's that I've read, so I've sort of been on both
ends of it. I'm looking at this time. I had a number of general comments and I
had specific comments, but since I'm going to submit these in writing anyway through
Linda Cooper, I'll just give you some general thoughts on this and then leave it with
Judy. My general comments were as follows: I really velt the serious flaws and
omissions in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement render it inadequate and
possibly illegal. In fact, it }'esembles a lot of the rambling and general impact state-
ments which were often rejected by the courts in the 1970's at the beginning of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The suits of the Environmental Defense Fund
and the National Resources Defence Council were quite successful in wiping out a
lot of such impact statements. The disclosures in this particular impact statement
were incomplete and the information in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was
at best sketchy, and the document needs to be completed and }'esubmitted. Practically
all of the information was general and not site specific, maps were poor. Cataloguing
of the impacts was ragged and the treatment of soils, plant and animal life was given
very short shrift. Alternatives were not suitably addressed and the economic
justification, which is important for a project like Southport certainly was almost
non-existent. Our comments onnto be a little bit more specific, a few of our main
comments were that the loadings to the Bay from such a development should be
calculated carefully and compared with current loadings. Fish and shellfish are un-
doubtedly affected, as well as wildlife habitat. And you can estimate the fertilization
loading as well as the nutrient loading. Any good environmental plan or any good
environmental consultant should be able to write a report that does that. How can
82 units and additional docks not have a substantial impact on Route 25 traffic patterns?
you've got to go back and recalculate this, expecially for peak times and you surely
can't assume that the users of 48 foot cruisers are not going to benthe users of 48
cruisers are going to be the first ont he water and the last off the water like commercial
fishermen. They're going to use the waterfront facilities at peak times for the roads.
The assumption that the deterioration of Peconic Bay waterfront is inevitable if South-
port is not permitted certainly doesn't seem justified, and the alternatives to the
development of the site certainly exist and must be addressed in a document of this
sort. EIS documents by law must address alternatives. We don't see what's in mind
in this report for storm runoff system and for a denitrification system. And it's hard
to believe that the water demands can be met by 13,300 gallons a day for 82 units
and a restaurant. I would figure at least 16,000 gallons per day alone for a fully
occupied motel, and whether that's a motel or even condominiums you've got to specify
which you're actually looking at, permanent residency, or are you looking at temporary
residency. And even more important what will be the consequent demands on local
groundwater? That must be addressed. There must be a detailed description of
holding tank facilities for a marina of this size and there are no maps submitted with
the plan to illustrate the areas for parking. There should be detailed maps with
this and any sketches, any maps at all should show a project which uses up an
extraordinary amount of land relative to the site. I can't quite understand why the
plan insists on talking about 12.35 acres, because the actual size of the land is 8.63
acres, or are we talking about underwater construction? The last comment I had had
to do with economic impacts, which are a part of the DEIS. If the current facility
and its operation are supposedly unrealistic and not economically feasible, how can
you justify this operation as it's proposed. Are there some magic calculations used
here7 If there are you've got to show them with dollar signs. That pretty much
says it generally, but my conclusion, or our conclusion, speaking for the CAC, is
that this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is in need of so much revision that
it might even at this point be a waste of time to go to a Final Environmental Impact
Statement. The applicant needs to rewrite practically the entire document and get
a good enviornmental planner and a good environmental consultant before resubmitting
It. Thank you.
Page 6 - Southpurt Development DEIS
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Henry?
TOWN TRUSTEE PRESIDENT HENRY SMITH: I'm just going to make comments on
the Trustee portions and the problems the Trustees had. The only thing we would
like to have something definitely would be holding tanks in the marina if it is built,
and boats that would be moored there permanently. I don't mean transient boats,
Boats that would be moored there permanently NOeJiJ '13ve hoiding tanks in them,
That would have to be something we'd put in the covenants or what have you. And
the only other thing we have is the navigation. There will be no restriction of
navigation to the people behind to get in and out of the creek. We do recognize
the Town does need marina space.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Henry. Is there anyone else? Ruth?
RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: We read the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and we would agree with the Conservation Advisory
Council. We found it wholly inadequate. We felt there should be soil cores taken
instead of just taking it from a map. Taken by the Suffolk County Soil and Water
Conservation people, to show both the gravel area, the composition of it where they
propose to put their denitrification system, and also in the clay area where they
propose to put some sort of drainage system for runoff. We just don't feel that
they can meet these runoff standards with this enormous clay layer underneath.
that it is going to run out into the Bay. There was no benthic study as far as
the bottom of the proposed inlet, both for the dredging and the placement of spoil.
We would like to see that. They had some sort of a wildlife summary which we
found was totally inadequate. It was done in the fall. People that have lived in
the area say there are nesting wildfowl in the area. We would like to see a study
done this spring of that. We would like to know the affect on the extension or
additional amounts of water from the Greenport Water System, what affect it would
have on that. We would like to see a letter of recommendation, not approval, but
from the Suffolk County Board of Health that this denitrification system which runs
a sulphur limestone bed works. We found there were no viable alternatives, just
residential housing. There was nothing to just enlarge the marina, to have the
marina plus the motel, or the marina plus a restaurant. Also we found the traffic
study to me was totally inadequate. They did it at a time of year that there is Ilot
much traffic. We would like to see it done say in the summertime when there is a
tremendous amount of traffic on Route 25. Also I do not see how a 16 ft. right--of
way is going to carry what they propose 2400 trips a day down to the marina, let
alone down to the proposed cluster housing in the Sage development. Thank you.
We hope that this would be completely rewritten. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address
the Town Board? (No response.) Anyone like to make any comments at all? Si,'?
MR. CONFORT I: Very briefly, Mr. Supervisor. The comments that I've heard
tonight in opposition, though in earnest and very meaningful, I think are misplaced.
At this point before this Board is an application for a rezoning, not an application
for a site plan approval, not an application for a special permit. According to the
Town Code the authority to give those approvals is vested in other boards, more
specifically the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. For that reason
the Environmental Impact Statement that was submitted was in fact not more detailed ,.
If in fact my clients are successful in this stage of the application we are faced with
subsequent applications to other boards and those other boards are going to mandate
". Page 7 - Southport Developm. DEIS
.
very, very detailed study encompassing much of the material sought or suggested
tonight by people in opposition. I would like to again remind the Board, as I have
pointed out in this letter, of what your true function is and again of the limited
scope of this hearing. Thank you.
SUPERVI SOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to add ress
the Town Board? (No response.) Any Town Board members like to make a comment
at this time? (No response.) If not I would like to make a motion to recess this
public hearing until 3: 30 P.M. on February 25thnTuesday, February 25th.
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Supervisor, may I make a comment?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Is it not possible to hold that in the evening rather than the afternoon
so that more people interested in this may attend?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It's unfortunate on the time. You want to move along. This
is a three week spread because of this Association of Towns meeting.
MR . FLYNN: I'm merely saying that it precludes the attendance of a lot of interested
parties if you hold it in the afternoon.
COUNC I LMAN SCHONDEBARE:
any interested parties that are
parties? Is there someone who
Well we're here now. This is the
here now that can't come back, as
can't come back?
evening. Are there
far as interested
MR . FLYNN: prefer not to. It's rather costly for me. It's costly for my wife
to come back in the mid-afternoon at the convenience of the applicant, really.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: No, it's the convenience of the Town Board. That's
when we have the meeting. Everyone can come back.
Moved by Supervisor Murphy, seconded by Councilman Schondebare, it. was
RESOLVED that this public hearing be recessed to 3: 30 P.M., Tuesday, February
25, 1986, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council-
man Schondebare, Councilman Stoutenburgh, Justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy.
This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED.
* * *
/7 . a-' .....-/-------
/ ~0-,..'~', .'
~..{c" L.-./ .'---'"'<:/ .> /.V
c....-Judith T. Terry r/
Southold Town Clerk
,
.
.
~
"
TFLFPHON1'
l516) 76.5-1801
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(DEIS)
SOUTHPORT
By The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
Dr. Martin H. Garrell, Chairman
Hearing at Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York
February 4, 1986
GENERAL COMMENTS
The serious flaws and omissions in this DEIS render it inadequate and
possibly illegal. In fact, it resembles the rambling, general impact
statements which were so often rejected by the courts in the 1970s at
the beginning of NEPA. Disclosures were incomplete and information in
the DEIS was sketchy at best, and the document needs to be completed
and resubmitted. Practically all of the information was general and
did not site specifics, maps were poor, catloging of impacts was ragged
and the treatment of soils, plant, and animal life was given incredibly
short shrift. Economic justification, which is important for a project
like Southport was almost non-existant.
COMMENTS ON "ENVIRONMENTAL INPACTS", pages 27 ff.
Loadings to the Bay from such a development ought to be calculated and
compared with current loading. Fish and shellfish will undoubtedly
be affected as well as wildlife habitat. Fertilization can be
estimated as well as nutrient loading.
How can 82-units and 121 docks not have a substantial impact on Route 25
traffic patterns? Better go back and recalculate this, especially for
peak times. Surely the users of 48-foot cruisers are not going to be
first on the water and last off the water like commercial fishermen!
Why do you assume that deterioration of Peconic Bay waterfront is
inevi table if Southport were not permitted? Alternatives to' the develop-
ment of thesite surely exist. EIS documents must address alternatives in
a reasonable fashion.
What do you have in mind for a storm runoff system and for a denitrifi-
cation system? It's hard to believe that water demands can be met by
13300 gpd for 82 units and a restaurant. I'd figure at least 16000 gpd
for a fully occupied motel alone. What will be consequent demands on
local groundwater?
c'Cil)Vv. .j..~!' .:)'+
[) vt'~
'r- "
Let's see a detailed description of holding tank facilities for
a marina of this size.
There are no maps submitted with the plan which adequately illustrate
the areas for turf and parking. I believe any sketches would betray
a project which uses up an extraordinary amount of land relative
to the site. Why do you insist on talking about 12.35 A? The
actual size is only 8.63 acres, or do you intend to reconstruct
Atlantis underwater?
OTHER COMMENTS-9
p. 4 Public need for a marina never justified economically.
p.13 Do you really believe you can get the approvals from these
agencies in 2 years?
p.14-17 Where are maps showing land use, soil samples, vegetation
types?
p.19 What are "limited popularities of upland wildfife species"?
The species with most limited popularity are not the animals
at all!
p.20 By your own admission, your traffic will add 14 per cent to
the gaps on the road, yet you claim virtually no impact.
Is the LIRR really the only means of public transportation,
or haven't you heard of the S-92 coach? Of the Sunrise coaches
to NYC dai ly?
p.33 Where are you planning to dredge? Show this and discuss effects
on Bay, effects on shellfish, please.
p.34 How is wildlife habitat for nesting and shelter compatible
with an 82-unit motel? What about noise levels, periodic
disturbance of all surrounding wetlands?
p.36 How will a zoning change "remove the potential threat" of
environmental pollution? What will you do to the area if you
are not given the zoning change? See discussion above of
need to discuss alternatives.
p.37 No significant effects anticipated for shellfish populations?
Better map out dredge areas and nearby shellfish beds first!
p.41 If the current facility and its operation are "unrealistic"
and "not economically feasible", how can you justify your own
operations? Is there some magic calculation used here?
You must show this with dollar signs.
SUMMARY
We conclude that the DEIS is in need of
may be a waste of time to go to a FEIS.
rewrite practically the entire document
so much revision that it
The applicant needs to
before resubmitting it.
.
BOARD OF TOWN TRLSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1892
February 4, 1986
Mr. Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.E.
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Southport Development
Young's Marina, Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Fischetti:
Pursuant to your letter dated January 29, 1986 regarding
the above referenced project please be advised that the Trustees
do have jurisdiction on the private land underwater. This
jurisdiction comes under the "Wetland Ordinance, Chapter 97 from
the Code of the Town of Southold". The marina protion of the
project would fall under the Wetland Ordinance also.
If you have any further questions, or if we may assist
you in the future, please do not hesitate contacting us at
the telephone number listed above.
~lY Yours~
.~
Henry P. Smith, President
Board of Town Trustees
HPS:ip
cc: Planning Board
Zoning Board
Building Dept.
Trustees
file
., . I /'." ,
{.~r(.,v'-'\ ;j.' 6"
.
.
'('\Y(HIE\,. I,.\TH.U! & SHE.\
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET
,JAN 22 REC'D
PO. BOX 398
IU\-E~IIE_\J). .'\'E\\" '\"In.:l, 11001
THOMAS A. TWOMEY JR
STEPHEN S. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. ill
CHRISTOPHER D KELL-EY
1516) 727-2180 9 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N,Y, 11937
(5161324-1200
AMY 8. TURNER
LAWRENCE M. STORM.
MAUREEN T. lICCIONE
January 17, 19B6
"ALSO ADMITTED IN CON"iECTiCUT
AND FLORIDA
~s. Judith Terry
Town Clerk ..
~own of Southold
Town Hall
Main Roai'
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement of SOl1thport Dev elop~er.t.
Dear Ms. Terry:
This firm represents Henry Weisman and Frank Flynn
who live in close proximity to the Southport Development
proi ect. Enclose,'! please find an or io inal and five
copies of their comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact State~ent of Southport Development for review and
consideration. In light of the gross inadequacies of
the DPIS and its facial legal inadequacy, ~y clients
would request that the public hearing on the DEIS be
adiourned frow Februarv 4, 1qB~ until such time as the
Draft is amended to correct the incorrect information
found therein and to supply the necessary material that
has been omitted. The enclosed comments set forth in
detail the legal problems with the DEIS.
Soi~jpt
Christopher Kelley
CK/lcd
Encls.
cc: Supervisor Murphy
Town Planner, David Emilita
.'
r--
WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Southport Development, situate at Sage
Boulevard in Greenport, coincides with the year-end Holiday
Season, and
WHEREAS, both the Town of Southold as well as the applicant
desire sufficient time for public and agency review and comment
on the proposal, now therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board as lead agency now extends the
public comment period to 4:00 p.m., January 21, 1986.
, \
" \" ,..,
\
.
.
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY TIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of
Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1986,
at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southord, New York, on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement submitted by South port Development, with
respect to thei r petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial
District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on
certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road,
on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting
of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the
property changed to permit the development of a motel complex.
SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town
Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for
inspectin during regular business hours.
DATED: January 7, 1986.
JUDITH T. TERRY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
* * *
PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 16, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK,
TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.
Copies to the following:
The Suffolk Times
The Long Island Traveler-Watchman
Town Board Members
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Southold Town Planning Board~
Board of Town Trustees
South port Development
.
.
Dt'.,. 'j..
- I.. i985
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public comment period has been
extended to 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, with respect to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development
-_.,----,-~-
to the Southold Town Board with reference to their petition for a change
of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence
District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of
Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard,
Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres.
SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board.
Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold
Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Dated: December 17, 1985.
JUDITH T. TERRY
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
* * *
PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK,
TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.
Copies to the following;
The Suffolk Times
The Long Island Traveler-Watchman
Town Board Members
Southold Town Planning Board V'"
Southold Town Building Department
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
N . Y . S. Depa rtment of State
Southport Development
1*.\1
.J/-\,j\l
~ . i", r- ,
. ',.J,-'n
"-~ oJ "J\.J
/~ --- - ,-
11'-u0? /.f!cJc:~itl..7_ '
j:m: A:/U:11. 1f'O{{/!~.
~&"'o:tZe~ . .c"
;,j,'\
rn'1 1I0!!')
". I. I. vA
. ! r r r:; ~;':;-: I) ~'J
\l """'.', .Ui.
.
,:.2~CEr;J~L1
Town C~t?rk Snuthold
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY. N. Y. 12231
GAIL 5 SHAF ~.ER
SECRETARY OF STATE
December 27, 1985
Ms. Judith Terry
Town Cl erk
Town of Southold
TOlin Hall
Main Road
Southold, i,Y 11971
Dear Ms. Terry:
The Department of State, as the State's coastal management agency, appre-
ciated the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Southport Development prepared by The Land Use Company. The Department
is interested in this pending action by the Town of Southold, for the zoning
change described in the DEIS would affect over 12 acres of land which front
on and lie beneath the waters of Southold Say.
Although the proposed rezoning would facilitate the siting and operation
of water dependent and water enhanced uses in the State's coastal area, the
planned development does raise a few concerns about the utilization and pro-
tection of coastal resources. Our comments on these concerns are as follows:
1. Since the marina will provide 120+ mooring spaces for seasonal and
transient use, special efforts should be taken to protect the quality
of the Bay's waters from pollution caused by the discharge of vessel
wastes. Therefore, pumpout facilities should be provided for the
safe disposal of such wastes. Further, signs should be posted advis-
ing boat owners to use the available pumpout facilities and not to
discharge vessel wastes into coastal waters.
2. To minimize the impacts that the marina activities may have upon adja-
cent property owners, all floats, piers, etc. should be set back a
reasonable distance from the seaward extensions of the site's property
lines. A setback distance of 15 feet is frequently used to reduce the
effects of adjacent boat mooring activities. Due to the enclosed con-
figuration of the water area and the proximity of the land area to the
north of the marina, however, additional setbacks or realignment of
the proposed piers may be warranted.
3. The need to dredge the marina basin to a depth of 10 feet below Mean
Low Water is not fully demonstrated in the DEIS. This need is further
complicated by the fact that the existing channel which would serve
0tiJ\ \ /~I!fj0\
,--
Ms. Judith Terry
December 27, 1935
Page 2
the marina has an authorized depth of -6 MLW. This item requires addi-
tional explanation.
4. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard as a safe and convenient service road
for the motel/restaurant/marina complex, existing uses and other planned
developments seems questionalbe. For example, it is doubtful that two
trucks (delivering supplies to the motel/marina complex) could pass each
other in opposite directions without one of the vehicles going off the
paved surface. If other developments are planned along Sage Boulevard,
this may be the appropriate time to consider the improvements necessary
for this roadway.
5. The DEIS identifies a number of State coastal policies that would be
applicable to the proposed action and subsequent development. However,
this section of the document does not adequately describe how the action
would be consistent with those policies. The FEIS should contain further
discussion on these coastal policy concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. Should you or the
preparer have any questions on the above comments, please contact me or Mr. Aram
Terchunian at (518) 474-3642.
Specialist
WFB:dlb
cc: A. Terchunian
K. Cross
.
.
;1;;;CEIVi:O
~~nv ~t'.1') u;:BR
\ 'I ,,-- ~ i ',,} v
"0':' ':'~-'.': r'''J~'J
.;......,]}'uiUu
~ihJ~
~~7U(J&'
- ,-...I
December ii, 1985 Town Clork Southard
Dunn Engineering, P.C.
66 r:ain Street
,lesthampton Beach, ~~ l197R
Dear ?-~r. Dunn:
Southport 17esort
Sage Boulevard, Soutr.old
Fe have discussed the subject project with you on recember 5, 1<;R5.
Since the site does not have frontap;e on Route 25,
Sage Boulevard only. He do not believe tnat
sip,nific3ntly impact traffic in this area.
its access "ill be from
thIs developT"ent ,,111
Thank you for your cooperation concerninp, this matter.
Very truly yours,
~/ . , //
./ //
'T. C. ;,k";~
P.egional {tdffiC Engineer
TCH:JJ-l:JS
cc: Town of Southold" "'__
Pile: ~otJtE" ?5, Southald
,'k ~~j\
./y,\'i:r\! '\,
I,j . ,_
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
.
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 5, 1985
David Emilita, Town Planner
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New Yark 11971
Dear Dave:
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
The Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on
December 3, 1985, adopted a resolution directing you to review the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the change of zone petition
of Southport Development, as requested by the Southold Town Planning
Board. Actual expense to the Town of Southold for reviewing this
DEIS shall be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Councilman Stoutenburgh would like you to notify him when you
conduct this review so he may be present.
Very truly yours,
~~.-
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Planning BoardV'
Counci Iman Stoutenburgh
Southport Development
cc:
..,
.
.
\\l,~' .;;;
,,,as
JUDITH T TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Date: November 19, 1985
APPLICANT: Southport Development
ADDRESS: P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER:
Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple
Residence District, Petition No. 269.
..-.-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the zoning status of the
property changed to permit the development of a motel complex.
PROJECT lOCATION: South of the Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly
side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres.
SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared
on this project and is on file.
SEQR lEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board.
AVAilABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statment
may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must
be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than December
27, 1985.
CONT ACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Town of Southold, Town Hall
Main Road, Southold, New York 11971
(516) 765-1801
~~~\ ~, \~>.~
,\y,C \,
\ . \\ ~ /-~~ ~~ J
. ,:'<:1 ',J'
, oj ~. .
~~. '
. c}
~ , C--~{~
,I
\,...-
, "
, '
'J
.
.
r
PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 27, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT
OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD,
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971.
Copies to the following:
The Suffolk Times
The Long Island Traveler-Watchman
Town Board Members
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Building Department
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
NYS Department of State
Southport Development
..
~.
SEP'S \98S
SOUTHPORT DEVFLOPMEN~
P. O. Box 616
Southold, 1'ew York 11971
September 13, 1985
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Francis J. Murphy
Supervisor
Fe: Application of Southport Development
for Change of Zone from "c" Light
Industrial District to "M-l" General
Multiple Residence District
Dear Supervisor Murphy:
We are in receipt of the Suffolk County Planning Commission's
letter of August 8, 1985 concerning their review of the South-
port Development application pursuant to sections 1323 through
1332 of the Suffolk County Charter.
We are pleased that, after the Suffolk County Planning Com-
mission's review, they have approved the subject application.
Concerning their conditions, we feel they are consistent with
the subject application as well as the proposed zoning ordi-
nance which is currently being considered by the Town Board.
Regarding the specific conditions contained in the Suffolk
county Planning Commission's letter, the following are our
comments:
1. "Premises will be restricted for marine and
related uses." This language is In general
agreement with the marine and marine-related
uses as established within the Marine
Recreation District (M-Rec) and Marine
Business District (M-B) within the Proposed
~\q/?)5 ovev
~
'-'
Zoning Ordinance and with our subject appli-
cation. The related uses would encompass
motel, restaurant, and supporting marine
facilities. It should be further noted
that the application and the conditions
of the Suffolk County Planning Commission
would also be consistent with the present
zoning ordinance in effect as it relates
to the Southport Development application.
2. "There will be no expansion of the existing
marina facilities." The proposed marina
facilities as outlined in the application
would be confined within the physical
boundaries of the existing marina. This,
in fact, is the basis of the Southport
Development application.
3. "A sewage pump out station-holding tank
should be available at dockside for vessel
waste containment." The applicant has full
intention of complying with all required
regulations as they relate to vessel waste
containment.
As you will recall, the Town Board requested, at our meeting
of August 6, 1985, that we review our application with Robert
Tasker, the Town Attorney, to determine the application's
consistency with the proposed modifications that the Town
Board may enact as part of their adoption of the new Town
Zoning Ordinance. From our discussions with Mr. Tasker,
I can report that the changes being contemplated to the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance within the Marine Recreation
District and the Marine Business District are not in con-
flict wi th the application's intent. On this matter, we
await an opportunity to review in detail the changes to the
proposed ordinance.
We hope that the above comments will be helpful in the Town
Board's consideration of the Southport Development application,
but fully recognize that the ultimate zoning decision on this
matter lies with the Town Board and not the County of Suffolk.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
tlrlg.
~~
Very truly yours,
fopios
Atty. J L'~'"
~ t/It/,{d'%~;//
I'.ilbur Klatsky .
Consultant
Adg. D2:e
File&(.
cc.: Judith
Robert
1.)'/('
~r.o,/~
t'7~p
T. Terry, Town Clerk
Tasker, Town Attorney
WK:rried
.'
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
J
RECEIVED
con FOR '1M
INfORIIAlIII
AUG 1 21985
Town Clerk Southold
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
LEE E. KOPPELMAN
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
August 8, 1985
Ms. Judith T. Terry, Clerk
Town of Southold
53095 Main Rd. - P.O. Box 728
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Application of "Southport Development"
(1/269) for a change of zoning from "c" light
Industrial to "M-I" General Multiple Residence,
Town of Southold (SD-85-9).
Dear Ms. Terry,
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk
County Charter, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on August 7, 1985,
reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation
Resolved to approve it subject to the following:
l~ Premises will be restricted for marine and related uses;
2. There will be no expansion of the existing marina faciLities; and
3. A sewage pump out station/holding tank area shall be available
dockside for vessel waste containment.
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
::"~e<i /;~
Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
GGN:gcc
VETERA.NS MEMORIAL H1GHWA Y
HAUPF'AUGE. LI., NEW YORK 11788
l!51 6) 360-!51 92
ce
(e
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR or VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOllOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOlD TOWN BOARD ATA REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 16,1985:
WHEREAS, South port Development has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board
for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple
Residence District on certain property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25),
on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, and consisting of
12.451 acres,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOllOWS:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and
Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does
hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment.
2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by
the aforementioned law, rules and code.
3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Southport Development,
of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement, in accordance with the scope and contents required by the
Town Board, all in accordance with said law, rules and code.
* * *
"~~
c7,L&d7'~,{.c~~
.,;:2)"'Jualth I. Terry (7
SouthoJd Town Clerk
III
'-
'\
\
\
);;)-
pt?U~
tJ! C/
~
frV'
;p61l'?
~
(
FOR DISCUSSION
RE: SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT - Scoping for Draft EIS
I have spoken to Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook, relative to a Scoping
meeting for preparation of Draft EIS for Southport Development change of zone
petition. He will be available at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 6th to meet with
the Town Board, Planning Board and Southport representative. Will the Town
Board be available?
~~
CI
c.
AL:r; ')
1985
JUDITH T. TERRY
ToM" CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 1197]
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ATA REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 16,1985:
WHEREAS, Southport Development has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board
for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple
Residence District on certain property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25),
on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, and consisting of
12.451 acres,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and
Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does
hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment.
2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as reqUired by
the aforementioned law, rules and code.
3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Southport Development,
of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement, in accordance with the scope and contents required by the
Town Board, all in accordance with said law, rules and code.
* * *
.
"~~
L?,L&d7'~<7~~
~Jualth I. Terry (7
Southold Town ClerK
,. Ii I
\.
. ':1:.'
~
v.
/7)-
pt?U~
tJ/v
....----
r'V'
)Pblt ?
~
(
FOR DISCUSSION
RE: SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT - Scoping for Draft EIS
I have spoken to Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook, relative to a Scoping
meeting for preparation of Draft EIS for Southport Development change of zone
petition. He will be available at 7: 00 P.M., Tuesday, August 6th to meet with
the Town Board, Planning Board and Southport representative. Will the Town
Board be available?
~~
.
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERh:
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 31, 1985
Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant
Southport Development
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Southport Development
Application for Change of Zone
Dear Mr. Klatsky:
The Southold Town Board has scheduled 7:00 P.M..! Tuesday,
August 6, 1985, Southold Town Hall, for a Scoping Meeting relative
to the abovecaptioned petition and requested DEIS. Charles Hamilton,
DEC, Stony Brook, will also be in attendance at this meeting, as well
as a member of the Southold Town Planning Board.
In accordance with our telephone conversation of this date, the
Board will be expecting to meet with you and your environmental
consultant Chuck Bowman on that date.
Very truly yours,
,fizj;cur!:~!I-----
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
cc: Charles Hamilton, DEC
Southold Town Planning Board v---
-.
oI:;\.,~0
.
I
South old . N. Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
July 30, 1985
Judith Terry
Town Clerk
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Southport Development Corp.
presently known as Young's Marina
Dear Mrs. Terry:
The fOllowing action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board, Monday, July 29, 1985.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board foward the
their recommendations to the Town Board regarding the change
of zone from C to Ml for Southport Development Corp., presently
known as Young's Marina. Please refer to the attached letter (7/22)
for the recommendation.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate tffi>contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
~-tt Or~j \\..a1VJ
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CH2iRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
enc.
cc: Wilbur Klatsky
.
.
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
July 22, 1985
Southold Town Board
Town of Southold
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Southport Development Corp.
Presently Young's Marina
Application for change of zone from
e to M-l
Gentlemen:
The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed zone change
for Southport Development from "e" Light Industrial to "M-l"
General Multiple Residence District. This request for zone
change is for the property known as Young's Marina.
The applicant's request for the M-l District is to allow
for motel and restaurant use in conjunction with the marina
operation. The proposed Master Plan zone recommendation by
Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner for the site is Marine
Recreation.
The Planning Boaro, therefore, recommends, for ~our
consideration, the zone change to the M-l District subject
to the applicable covenants and restrictions to restrict
the M-l use for the uses that would parallel the proposed
marine recreation zone which would allow for restaurant and
motel use.
We are available to meet with the Board to discuss this
project at your convenience.
Thank you for your consideration.
;;!?~~y/!
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., ~~rman
Southold Town Planning Board
dms
('(":
rrown C'lprk.
v'
Town Attornev
.
.
.
JUt 24 1985
SOUTHPORT DEVELOP~~ENT
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
July 23, 1985
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Re: Southport Development
(Young's Marina)
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
As a result of our meeting with the Planning Board of
July 8, 1985 concerning the application being made by
Southport Development for a proposed change of zone from
"e" Light Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple
Residence District, two questions were raised which the
Planning Board wanted the applicant to address.
The Planning Board requested that the applicant confirm
its intent to develop a motel complex, expanded marina and
supporting facilities after the proposed zoning change has
been granted. Accordingly, the applicant, as contract
vendee, would agree to the following general declaration:
SOUTH PORT DEVELOPMENT (the Applicant) agrees
to make prompt application to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for a Special Exception to permit
the development of the subject premises in
accordance with the following uses: Hotel
and/or motel development of approximately
80 units, expanded marina facilities, a
restaurant and supporting facilities for the
development, including but not limited to
pool and tennis courts. This application
to the Zoning Board of Appeals would occur
immediately after a change of zone from "e"
h
/i!" .if>
O~I'("
.
.
.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
July 23, 1985
Page 2
Light Industrial District to "M-l" General
Multiple Residence District is granted by
the Southold Town Board and the required
site plan approval has been granted by the
Southold Town Planning Board. This declara-
tion will remain in effect unless the
necessary governmental approvals and permits
are denied or not acted upon within a period
of six (6) months from the date of this
application. In such event, the premises
will be immediately released from the en-
cumbrances and restrictions herein set forth,
which shall thereafter be null and void.
Relative to the Planning Board's other question, Joseph
Fischetti, Jr. is doing business as Southport Development.
The applicant has studied the Master Plan and Proposed Zoning
Regulations for the Town of Southold, currently being reviewed
by the Town Board, and with that in mind, feel that the
current application is fully consistent with the proposed
zoning ordinance. We are alerting the Planning Board to
that fact since we are desirous that this proposed develop-
ment conform with the future goals that may be established
by the municipality. This information is also being brought
to your attention since the Master plan and Proposed Zoning
Regulations may be adopted during the processing of this
application. In that event, the processing would continue
under the present application.
Thank you again for your continued cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
/....~
4f/;{!t.c~ '(. j2[~:r~ '
wi lbur Kla tsky
Consultant
WK:med
cc.: Southold Town Planning Board
RECEIVED.
JUL - ,., ,^^.
- ,........
1 CJ . _."~
Ife ;~,(?~.?'2;;r- ~00
tI ~
.....
.~
tc 'fftuu7ced ~~.
?~~C7Z/-~
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
- J - Town Clerk Southold
-..\u :{..h'T I €R.(2..1
$ou~\J low..! Cl"...",-
p, c, ~..)( /2e,
Sou~l.&, tJ. ", tlG 1/
Dear Ylh ~/?.!l-'11
This letter responds to your communication of <-. I, e Ie.'> . regarding
lead agency coordination for the above-noted project. under Article 8 (State
Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law
and 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Department has the following interest in this
project:
7 J ~.:. J 8 S-
Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE
DEC Permits (if any): 10 -eS---07't~- - K€c."..~'''''''''''''-' e~I:>4-."'S""A"'\"',~
b'1 ."".,,~..(\..,><, I.b Sl,ps I <:...+.......11<-"1 ~1"Ak, dr".lso:: l/lcue. c.vk"t: '1 <+/2.1..
cC ,...."'k....~...t
DEC Contact Person: ChAr-I...."-:- 1-l~; lj.."rJ
SEQR Classification: [] Type I
[~isted
DEC Position:
Based on the information provided:
[~EC has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for
this action.
DEC wishes to assume lead agency status for this action.
DEC needs additional information in order to respond (see comments).
DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action.
[~ee attQ9ll.8a [ ] none
-a~~ ()~ Sheet-
If you do not concur with the DEC position indicated above. please contact
this office to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under
Part 617.
Comments:
Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion.
Sincerely. ~.
r.J n n .--....--.,
~\- .....
cc: (attach distribution list)
0w0
/
C,6)r) 1-IS-g':,
~d:O-- (
,[lDler-
1....Q..:.. ~ ~~ C>-<.<.A ~ ~""'
0-6 '/318;;- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~", ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ {to. ~ ~ 0.6 2-:..., <<:... Ap~,--.
1..0R- ~ ~ ~ ~..(..o ~ ~".~P.(]<Q
~ C~_\~ ~~ f"..Q ~.~ ~
~-~ .J.J2..d: ~ ~~~~.
WR.. ~ ~ ~ ~ i-v.(..Q., ~ To-<.<-,,-
PI"",,:~ ~ ~ fR.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0-8~
~ w~ ~ 8c~ ~ o-'\.~.
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ c~cL;-e~
~ ~Q' ~ c.-.. ve-I"5
.T~~~-,--<!
~~
JUDITH T TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Dated: July 16, 1985
Pursuant to the provIsions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law,
Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter
44 of the SouthoJd Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does here-
by determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have
a significant effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Petition of Southport Development for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial
District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District on certain property located south
of the Main Road (NYS Route 25). ont he westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport,
New York, and consisting of 12.451 acres.
Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town
Clerk, Town of Southold, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Copies to:
Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook
Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany
Southold Town Planning Board.v----
Southold Town Bui Iding Department
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant. for Southport Development
.
(I-
"
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 19,1985
Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant
Southport Development
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Klatsky:
Enclosed herewith is a "Notice of Significant Effect on the Environ-
ment" with respect to the petition of Southport Development for a Change
of Zone, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution
on July 16, 1985, a copy of which is also enclosed.
In accordance with your letter of July 16, 1985, it is understood that
Southport Development will prepare a draft environmental impact statement
for submission to me upon completion.
I will be in touch with you within the week concerning a mutual date
for a Scoping meeting.
Very truly yours,
- ~
~crL/.b/?~
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosures
JUDITH T TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 16,1985:
WHEREAS, Southport Development has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board
for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple
Residence District on certain property located south of the Main Road (NYS Route 25),
on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, and consisting of
12.451 acres,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva-
tion Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and
Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does
hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a
significant effect on the environment.
2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by
the aforementioned law, rules and code.
3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Southport Development,
of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement, in accordance with the scope and contents required by the
Town Board, all in accordance with said law, rules and code.
* * *
..~~
C::Ldt.d?' 'L4.fo-<cc/_
FYJualth I. Terry C1
Southold Town Clerk
~
.
. lJUL18 1985
.
COPY fOR YOUR
INfORMATION
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
RECEIVED
JUL 1 81985
Town Clerk Southold
July 16, 1985
Southold Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Re: Southport Development; Application
for Change of Zone from "C" Light
Industrial District to "M-l" General
Multiple Residence District
Dear Mrs. Terry:
In accordance with our telephone conversation of
this date, this letter will confirm that Southport
Development will prepare the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the municipality's review in
connection with the application for the rezoning
of the subject parcel from "C" Light Industrial
District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District.
Thank you again for your continued cooperation.
Very truly yo~~
11/ d! u/ /cff4-/
Wilbur Klatsky
Consultant
(516) 765-2954
WK:med
--J
,
)
.
~~~t ~ddf~~ 6Ju~
-x P-.r =)jac.}-- E4F -=lU2-J5 c-... 0 (4. c.cJ ~ skc/l:~ "'~
. treswev0 or h~ l.A;eJ'I~d.
)Ie PrCijQct EAf sLM 5 CL 0.14 CAe/&.. ~; Ac..~. /,.~
L-t.ZvW SuJt~ a.(oc.....
X V(c;?,ctEA( 4aws 0-- /, OSQc!€ ~Q~ tv- puJQj
I 5~~'
~ Ih- c< I ~L "f- -tt-J ea ~ 0} ~ CL~L~-g1ed pl~J^- -1- ~
O<L-~v'-v'C<-\ I ~ h4- uM f ~ '
\)f:~JeLt t;AF sa~ s" GL.t-~ ~LJQ.t{aw{ C\/ 0(0 bLx:~ cfQd&-~ .
-r:1~c::1 L,-.xJ.usl.J..odM ~~tf jJ&t~t ~ NO+kdl~C"~
~8AF II 1
CO"/{Dic~ ~ L~~~ { BtS ~ 'Sui fL~~'
u,:t ph:~ILJe. to cl5Utfl2k0- p<<t J[ EAF 0+ +8;1~~' .
I- g~ c, C\ Slle p~ ~-C6 GtrJiA f'Qpd:
.
.
SOUTH PORT DEVELOPME~T
, "
~V60. 1 u raB.
ii".,
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
July 10, 1985
Southold Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
He: Southport Development; Application
for Change of Zone
Dear ~rs. Terry:
In accordance with your letter of July 8, 1985,
please find enclosed a duly executed Notice to
Adjacent Property Owners, a copy of which Notice
was mailed on today's date, by certified mail, to
Frank ~. Flynn and wife, Tarpon Drive, Southold,
New York.
Thank you for bringing this matter to OUL attention.
Very truly yours,
1JI;~/~-
Wilbur Klatsky
Consultant
med
Ene.
cc.: Southold Town Planning Board ~
.
.
SOUTHPORT DEVEI.OPMENT
'U'
.. .. 1 0 1985
P. O. Box 616
Southold, New York 11971
July 10, 1985
Southolo Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
Re: Southport Development
Application for Change of Zone
Dear Mrs. Terry:
At the time that we submitted our application for
a change of zone to the Town Board, we listed our
address as Hobart Road, Southold, New York. Since
that time, we have been able to secure a post office
box, #616, Southold, New York.
We would appreciate it if you would note your
records accordingly and direct all future corres-
pondence to said post office box.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
v;; ;;;~;;it;
Wilbur Klatsky
Consultant
med
cc. :
Southold Town Planning Board ~
?
.
.
\"J
y
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
July 9, 1985
Mr. Wilbur Klatsky
Consultant
Southport Development
Hobart Road
SouthOld, NY 11971
Re: Southport Development
Young's Marina
Dear Mr. Klatsky:
Please let this confirm the requests of the Planning Board
at the regular meeting, Monday, July 8, 1985.
The Planning Board requests a disclosure statement listing
the principals for Southport Development Corp. The Board also
requests covenants and restrictions which reflect the marine
business zone as indicated in the proposed Master Plan,
since the "M-l" zoning allows for uses not allowed in the
proposed zone.
We will be in contact with you regarding the schedule
for the field inspections.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our off ice.
Very truly yours,
?-Vi I^ '" n -l-t (\... \pW/:'lIlA./'n JI /Y)\/.)
B~~~L~~SKI, JR:)-CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
.
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
To\\.'N CLERK
REGISTRAR or VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
July 8, 1985
Mr. Wilbur Klatsky, Consultant
Southport Development
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Klatsky:
The enclosed copy of a letter from Planning Board Secretary
Diane M. Schultze to myself is self-explanatory.
I enclosing a Notice to Adjacent Property Owners form which
you may utilize in notifying the proper owners. Please submit a
copy of the Notice and Receipt for Certified Mail to me following
mailing of same.
Very truly yours,
~~~~
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosures
............
r
.
T
LD
y
Southold. N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
JUly 8, 1985
Mrs. Judith Terry
Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Change of Zone proposal
Southport Development Corp.
Dear Mrs. Terry:
It has been brought to my attention that a Notice regarding
the above mentioned change of zone was incorrectly mailed to
Thomas P. and Doris Boyl~ as owners of Lot No. 51, Southold
Shores.
According to the current assessment roll, the owners are
Frank M. Flynn and wife, Tarpon Drive, Southold.
~~ry truly yours,
~1~.~tiTtze, Secretary
Southold Town Planning Board
r- -
v '<,,'"
f;\~;;> "-
", ~
v ,<,
JUN 2 b 198b
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
June 25, 1985
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Re: Southport Development
(young's Marina)
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
We were informed by the Town Board that our application
for a change of zone for the subject property has been
referred to the Planning Board for its recommendations.
As you recall, the application is for a change from "CO
Light Industrial to "M-l" General Multiple Residence
District to permit the development of a motel-restaurant
complex, as well as the expansion of the existing marina.
We are available to answer any additional questions you
may have before the hearing date. We will also be avail-
able for any field inspections if our presence would be
of help.
We would, of course, appreciate appearing on the first
available agenda for Planning Board action.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Very truly yours,
1JII~
"li lbur Klatsky
Consultant
WK:med
.
.
JUDITII T rFRRY
Tow"N n I-.RI-.:
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 18, 1985
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is the petition of Southport Development
requesting a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to
"M-l" General Multiple Residence District 011 certain property located
south of the Main (NYS Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage
Boulevard, Greenport, consisting of 12.451 acres.
Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described
in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommenda-
tion and transmit the same to me.
Very truly yours,
{",.,,,{Cr-
,/ --~ /7
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Attachment
Cr,
:<,
-,
A',-.
C,),."i-
.,
,-
,
/
.
.
(
c.-\sr' ~.\.): .fvC...,t;.............
ST XrE ',..~F NEW yorm: PETITIO;'>;
TO\\':\, CF Sm;TIIOLD
::; TEL .:-IATTER OF TIill PETITION OF SOUTHPORT DEVl'.LOPMENT
;'C" A CiIA1'\CE, 1I10DIFICATION OR AlIlEND.:-lEl'<1' OF TlIE BUlLDISC ZOciE ORDL'l.
A:,C:: U;,' THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW yom:
........................................................,..... .............
">:J TE1:: TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:
I,
f ,;OUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT , .
, ".. ................................................................ ,rcsldln~ at
(insert name of petitioner)
Hobar t Road, Sou thol d
Suffolk C(Junty, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real prc;.crty situated at
,.../~' Saqe Boulevard
. YJ tho] I, New York d t' 1 I b d d d d ., d f 11
..........., .. ............... ....................... an more par leu a1' y uun c an C.sCI'Ljl~ as 0 0\\'5:
DESCRIPTION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "j\"
2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Tow~ 01 Southold to eh",,;;(., ",odify and
"""",,,d tlle Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of SoutllOJd, Suffolk Cuu;;ty, New York,
j;~C:;lld;:;; ,h~ Building Zone Maps heretofore mude a part thereof, as follol'.'
"equest a change of zone from "c" Light Indus!'lidl DL,I J
to "M-]" General Multiple Residence District,
'r- ---'
3,
Such request is made for the following' reasons: To permi t the development of
a motel complex pursuant to Article V, "M-l" General Multiple
Residence District, Subsection B(4) I Special Exception by Board
of Appeals and subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board.
This application is consistent with the Proposed Zoning Regulations
and Master plan prepared by the Planning Board and submitted to
the Town Board for their consideration. The subject property of
this application has been designated within the Marine Business
District (M-B) of the Proposed Zoning Regulations. The appli-
can thereby reques ts that, if the Proposed Zoning Regula tions
"c'e adopted during the processing of the subject application,
then the applicant be permitted to continue with this existing
ap~lication subject to the regulations provided within the
[roposed Marine Business District (M-B) as may be amended.
B\,:
(I.. S,)
ST.\TE OF NEW YORK, )
) 55 ;--
COl::\TY OF SUFFOLK, )
,JOSEPH FISCHETTI, ,JR.
",::?r:, ".'!!l.1;\1P.9F.t. p,;,ye),qp!1!<:l!1.1;.,
, BEI:\G IlI'L',' S\'''CJ)(X, depoots ""U says tbt
h I..:> the pcitio:1cr in the within action; tklt lit' has re;:H! tLe j0re;,;()!r;;; Petit:i_n and knc,'.'.s
tr,. cu:.t:':;'~J thcrcuf; tll.it the ~Zlllh' i", true to li1 (her) O\';J: 1.;: \'.l:d;;!', except ,^; l' tLc nl;j::
to: ; ::1 ~it'::'~l't to be alk~l:J all \j,i'Jrlll~:,i\;:l ::l: 1 1,(':, :, anti tL:d ;), t(1 tl.\J:~c m3.tll': !.C Lclln'l"; It
Lc t,ue,
(i S,)
"
L,
, ,rt I:: I.~
(', 't t. ,j" \.)1 ,. .Jg!.i:., 1 i ~j,
14 '/" i\
~J/cuL!:l 0, . : ..!J .cUt,;~1/l'-
// v 1\'"<)1..:) Pul;iiL:
MARY E, IJAWSON
Nr:rrA"r. PUBLIC, Sto::te of New York
Nfl. ~2'4643121, Suffolk CO~J
fllftf1 tKoJres March 30. 19L~
.
.
;fe: 1~2fc,7'
fR/d
~vfj)4J
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
REC2\VED
JUt{ 141985
Town C!erlI ~
June 14, 1985
a
Southold Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
Re: Southport Development
(Young's Marina)
Dear Mrs. Terry:
We are in receipt of your letter of June 11, 1985.
Please find enclosed a complete metes and bounds des-
cription, which corresponds exactly to the map entitled
"Southport Development," dated ~ay 24, 1985, prepared
by Young and Young.
Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
~
v;;;;~
Wilbur Klatsky
Consultant
(516) 765-2954
..
---
.
.
Description of land shown on "Map to
accompany application for change in
Zoning Use District prepared for
Southport Development" as Applicant,
at Greenport, Town of Southold.
June 14, 1985
PARCEL I
BEGINNINING at a point formed by the intGr~cction of the
easterly line of the land of William Kilian with the southerly line
of the I and of Bayv i ew Rea lty ,Development Corp. and runn i ng thence
from said point of beginning easterly and southerly along the land
of Bayview Realty Development Corp. the following courses and distances:
(I) S. 800 27' 08" E. 453.84 feet; (2) S. 40 11'12" W. 771.06
feet to Southold Bay;
thence westerly along
a tie line along the high water
and distances: (I) N. 740 37'
21' 09" W. 162.79 feet; (3)
inlet of Southold Bay;
thence along and through the inlet of Southold Bay the
following courses and distances: (I) N. 670 02' 09" E. 73.08 feet;
(2) N. 470 09' 38" W. 295.00 feet; (3) N. r 43' 02" E. 400.00
feet; (4) S. 820 16' 58" E. 300.00 feet; (5) N. 520 43' 02" E.
70.71 feet to a point in the easterly line of the land of William
Ki I ian;
the high water mark of Southold Bay,
mark having the following courses
48" W. 483.98 feet; (2) S. 690
N. 650 31' 48" W. 51.94 feet to an
thence N. 70 43' 02" E. along the land of William Kilian
125.00 feet to the point or place of beginning.
PARCEL 11
BEGINNING at a point formed by the intersection of the
easterly line of land of Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. with the high
water mark of Southold Bay and running thence from said point of
beginning N. 190 12' 48" W. along the easterly line of the land of
Southold Shores Assoc. Inc. 94.73 feet.
)
thence southeasterly, southerly, northwesterly and south-
westerly along an inlet of Southold Bay and along the high water mark
of Southold Bay, the lines and tie line along aforesaid having the
following courses and distances: (I) S. 560 26' 57" E. 163.43
feet; (2) S. 160 12' 49" W. 27.90 feet; (3) N. 620 46' 33" W. 81.82
feet; (4) S. 680 14' 44" W. 26.37 feet to the point or place of
beginning.
~,.,. 'fiidlit....~
.
.
AlL 'mAT CERTAIN PIm, PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND, with the buildings and
improvenents thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Arsham:Jm:>que,
near Greenport, Town of Southald, County of Suffolk and State of New
York, DlJre particularly bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a nnmment set at the northeasterly comer of land now or
fonnerly of Zehner adjoining land nO\v or form=rly of Sage;
RUNNING thence along said land now or form=rly of Sage, two courses; (1)
South 67" 41' 40" East 25.11 feet; thence (2) South 160 56' 40" \.Jest 777
feet, DlJre or less, to ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay;
TI~CE northwesterly along said high water mark, 28 feet DlJre or less,
to a point 25.0 feet westerly from the last described line measured at
right angles thereto, to said land of Zehner;
11JENCE along said land of Zehner, North 160 56' 1,0" East 760 feet, DlJre
or less, to the point of beginning.
SAID parcel of land being 25 feet wide throughout.
BEmG AND INl'ENDED TO BE the sane premises conveyed to the Sellers by
Deed dated Septerrber 1st, 1981 and recorded in Suffolk County Clerk 's
Office on September 11, 1981 in Liber 9067 cp 557.
EXHIBIT "A"
-------
..". .
~
.
.
AIL TIlAT CERTAIN PIm, PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND, with the buildings and
improverrents thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows:
PARCEL 1. BEGINNING at a concrete lIDnllID2nt set on the southerly side of
a 16 feet wide Rig..l-tt of Way where it is intersected by the easterly line
of the lands nrn", or formerly of Killion and approximately 1740 feet
easterly along the said Right of Way from State Road: Thence South 6JO
41' 40" East along the southerly line of said Right of Way 428.73 feet
to a concrete m:mllID2nt and the westerly line of the lands no"" or
formerly of Sage: Thence South 160 56'~ 40" \.Jest along said lands 760
feet to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay: Thence westerly
along said high water mark on a tie line course and distance North 600
16' 20" West 481. 58 feet to the easterly side of the former entrance to
the basin: Thence North 200 28' 30" East along the former inlet to the
bas:in, continuing along the basin and further continuing along lands now
or formerly of Killion 694.83 feet to the concrete IIDnllID2nt set on the
southerly line of said Right of Way at the point or place of beginning,
together w~th all right title and interest in and to two arms of land
abutting on the west the course North 200 28' 30" East aforementioned
2nd jutting into the basin:
TOGE11JER with non exclusive easerrent of Right of \-lay to pass and repass
ror all purposes over the 16 feet wide roadway hereinbefore IT't2ntioned
nzning frO!'1 wherever said roadway contacts the premises hereinbefore
cescribed in a general westerly direction to State Road (the main
hightvay) .
PARCEL II. BEGL"llilllG at a point on the ordinary high water mark of
Peconic Bay at the southeasterly corner of LDt 52, Map of Southold
Shcres, Suffolk County Map 113853: from said point of beginning running
along the easterly line of said Lot 52 and passing through a concrete
llDI1UlIE1t North 200 08' 40" West 40 feet lIDre or less to the shore of the
basin: thence in a general northeasterly direction through the waters of
the inlet and along the shore of said basin on a line generally parallel
"lith a course North 750 15' 00" East 325 feet lIDre or less to Parcel I:
thence along Parcel I to the ordinary high watcr mark of Pcconic Bay and
through the waters of the inlet on a line generally parallel ',lith the
course South 750 15' 00" \~cst 325 feet nDre or less to the point or
place of beginning.
TOGETIIER with all the right, title and interest of Zchner to the lands
under the waters of Peconic Bay and the basin and betw'een those bodies
of water.
TOGETIlliR ",rith all the easements and appurtenaJlu,s in said clceds provided
and subject to the covenants therein.
BEING AND INfEllDED m BE the same prernbes cOl1vc'1ed to t1.. S,,] 'kt.s by
Deed dated October 5th, 1970 and recorded in Suffolk COUni'! Ckrk's
Office on October n st, 1970 in Liber 6826 'p 1':)7. .
~l~)""lt.,
, '~' '
i
I~" ,"
: 'I'
;i'
i'
.
.
ALL THAT CERTAIN PLOT, PIECE OR PAP,CEL OF LAND, situate, lying and being
at ArsharrDmaque, Town of So\.Jthold, County of Suffolk, State of New York,
being bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point where the division line between land of William
Kilian and Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of
way which said point is also the Northeast corner of land of William
Kilian;
Running thence along said division line of said lands in a southerly
direction 125.0 feet to the point of beginning;
Running thence along land of Zemer South 200 28' 30" West 50 feet;
Running thence North 690 31' 30" West 50.0 feet to other land now or
formerly of Sage;
Running thence North 650 28' 30" East 70.71 feet to the point and place
of BEGINNlliC.
TOGElllER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands now
or formerly of Sage in the basin adjoining the subject premises for
ingress and egress to the subject premises in canron with others.
PARCEL 2:
ALL THAT CERTAIN PLOT, PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate, lying and being
at Arsham:ll11aque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New
York, being bmmded and described as follows:
BECINNlliC at a point where the division line between land of William
Kilian and the land of Zemer intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot
right of way which said point is also the Northeast corner of land of
Hilliam Kilian;
Running thence along said division line in a Southerly direction with
its prolongation of said division line 575.0 feet to the northeast
corner of land now or formerly of Sage, the said point of beginning;
Running thence South 200 28' 30" West 90.0 feet;
Rtmning thence Southwest along the shore line of Pipes Cove, 140.0 feet;
Running thence North 340 24' 10" West 295.0 feet to land of Zemer;
RUIUling thence South 690 31' 30" East 350 feet to the point or place of
BEGINNlliG.
TOGElllER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands now
or fonnerly of Sage in the basin adjoining the subject premises for
ingress and egress to the subject premises in cOOIT'On with others.
BEING AND INTElIDED ro BE the same premises conveyed to the Sellers by
Deed dated Decenber 28th, 1982 and recorded in Suffolk (',auntv Clerk's
Office on January 10, 1983 in Liber 9296 cp 518. "
IfF""" .~
.
.
AlL TIlAT CERTAIN PWI', PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND, with the buildings and
improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Arsham:Jrnaque,
in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described
as follows:
BEGlc'mING at a point on the westerly b01.mdary line of the premises now
or formerly of Zehner which point is South 200 28' 30" \-lest 175 feet
from a m:murrent at the northwesterly comer of said land now or fOnrErly
of Zehner; from said point of beginning running thence along said
\Jesterly boundary line of land now or fOnrErly of Zehner South 200 28'
30" West 400 feet; thence into the waters of the "basin" three courses
as follows:
(1) North 690 31' 30" \-lest 350 feet; thence
(2) North 200 28' 30" East 400 feet; thence
(3) South 690 31' 30" East 350 feet to said vlesterly line of the
premises now or fOnrErly of Sage and the point or place of beginning.
TOG~l1~ with all of the right, title and interest, if any, of the
Seller, in and to any and all strips and gores of land, including land
under ~vater, between the above described premises and other lands now or
fornerly of the Seller.
BEING AND I~~ED TO BE the same premises conveyed to the Sellers by
Deed dated the 2nd day of December, 1970 and recorded in Suffolk C=ty
Clerk's Office on December 11, 1970 in Liber 6853 cp 432.
.
"",~'
~- .,
.
.
Judith T. Terry
June 6, 1985
Page 2
1. Three copies of the application and explanation
for the requested change of zone, which application
has been duly signed and notarized;
2. Six copies of a map to scale of the subject
property, drawn to the requirements of the
'Suffolk County Planning Commission;
3. Accurate boundary description, which is annexed
to the application as Exhibit" A" ;
4. Six copies of a completed Town of Southold
Environmental Assessment Statement, Part I;
5. Original Notice to adjacent property owners,
to which are attached the receipts for certified
mail showing service of same upon all adjacent
property owners;
6. Application fee of $500.00.
If there are any additional questions or materials required,
please call us at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
w~v/+i
Wilbur Kl~7
Consultant
(516) 765-2954
WK:med
Encs.
cc.: Southold Town planning Board
,::.,~
~~ <":
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
Hobart Road
Southold, New York
11971
RKEMl1.
JUN 6 1985
IClfI\'I a.tt SoutIioICI
June 6, 1985
southold Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
. Re: Application for Change of Zone from "C"
Light Industrial District to "M-l" General
Multiple Residence District
Dear Mrs. Terry:
After meeting with the Southold Town Planning Board to
discuss the subject application (Young's Marina), the
preliminary recororoendation was that the program met with
the proposed goals of the Master Plan. Accordingly, they
suggested that we make application to the Town Board for
the above change of zone to permit the development of a
motel-restaurant program along with the reconstruction
and expansion of the existing marina.
This application deals primarily with the motel-restaurant
aspect and, at some future date, if the change of zone is
granted, will permit the applicant to make application to
the Planning Board as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals
for the development of the above program.
Accordingly, we are formally submitting the attached
application for a change of zone from "c" Light Industrial
District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District.
please find attached the following documents:
.' ,
.
.
TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD
EAF
EHVIRO;IHEHTAL ASS~SSHEHT .PART I
Proi~ct Info~t1on
"OTICE: ThiS dOC~"~ ,~ oe\'~ned to ass1st in determining whether the action proposed may have a signlf1cant
efft'ct on t"e erlvlr.:.,~"t. Pi ease conelete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to) these Questions will be cor.Sldered
as tl4rt .of the ~l l\:ation for apprcval and may be subject to further Yerif1cll~;on and ,Public review. Prov1CSe
a~y .ddltionll lnformatlon you believe will be needed to comoletp PARTS 2 and 3.
1t IS exgectea t~llt cc~o'e~lr.n of t~e EAF 'II b d '
111 1 PI st d .... . . w' e eoendent on lnfor1n4tl0n currently available and w111 nOt
sov~n;~:a~ an~ ;::~;;;S::~~~1~~t~~~:~tiaatl0n. If 1nformatlon re~ulrin9 such addltionlll work 15 u"~va;~ble.
:'A"E OF PROJECT:
HA~E AHO ADDRESS OF OWHER (If Oifferent)
SOIJTHPORT MOTEL & MARINA
(Name)
A;;'EI5 ANO NAME OF APPLICANT:
(Street)
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
1'",,,, )
Hobart Road
(Street)
Southold, New York
\1'", c. I (SUte I
TP.c.1
(State)
(Zip)
BU~ H:SS PHONE:
11971
(Z,p )
D[,C'IPTlO~ OF p,QJECT' (Briefly describe type of project or action) Change of zone from "e"
~inht Industrial District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District
to permit development of motel-restaurant and reconstruction of
c;:isting marin\'l>LEASE CDHPLETE EACH QUESTlOtI _ Indicate H.A. If not applicable)
A, SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of over-ail project. both drveloned and undevelootd areas)
X
I. General character of t~e land: r~neral1y un1fonm slope ______ Generally uneven and rollinG or trre~ular
2.
J.
Present land use: l!rO...n . Industrhl . COntnercla] f Suburban . Rural I F"rest
_, Agriculture -X-. Other Marinaand sUDDo~ecreation"il faCITities.
. 1'.3' 3.72ac.bottomarea
IOU) acreage of or-oject area: L.. ures. 8 63 1 d
- . ac. up an area
Presently After Comr1etion
ADDrOl1matf .creage~
Heado~ or Brush 1 and _~ 0 * *acres 0 *0 * * acre5
FOr'ested 0 _~acres 0 ~_ac!"'"e5
.o.Qricultural 0 J2...- acre~ acre~
llater Surfdce Area 3 .
Presently After Complet1on
0** **0
~ '3 ~acres * 3_.~ lacr~~
Unvegetated (rOCk,
e.rth or fIll) 0
__Q..acresO _9_.acres
'lfttl,ilnd {FrUhwdter or
rldal ~~ oe" Art'cles
~4, :-~orC'.C.l.~ 0.39 (J _JC!"e{) O.25acre<;.
Roads. bUl1dlnos
and otner ;1aved
surfl\ces (j
(J -'.!.._dCcesQ l_.2]4<-e,
... 'It'it I! ""edomlJ"t""t 'iooli t,Ot'(5; )"i "',r0~ect sltp'
(ltl'ler (ind:ute tj"le}i "}. 9 3acnG 6. 88 acre~
L!ni rnprovpd J andscaped parking Ie
.
roe ;:ntrl!' ~PClr,~,~. J;JtcrC;]Jln., .~, ""rl11P:t 't"'~
Yf'S X "Ir
q i ;6
t. "'f'!at ~ So c:!P.::J':" ~.; bed"c,: ~ )
'nkno'w'11
('n 'eet)
*Marina Rt~Constnlct ion
**Motel-Restaurant
/j A,pro"'.."e percenU~e of proposed oroJect ,1(e wIth ,)ooe,. 0-10", lOll:, lO-),r
greater _1.
X. 15: or
I
Is prOject conttguou,~to. or contal" a buildl"n or site listed on the ~at;onal Register of HistarlC
Place~? _Yes ~No
Whit i, the depth to the water table? O~feet
Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently e~ist in the project area? ~Yes _____No
Coes project s1te contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or
endar,~~~ed - ----:'es ~]o. according to - Identify each species
8
9
10
11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? {i.e. c~iffs. dunes, other geological
fomuions . _Yes ---.1L.No. (Describe
12 Is the prOject site~resently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area . _____yes _____No.
t3 Does the pr~ent site offer or include scenic Vlews or vistas known to be important to the community?
_Yes _"0
1~ Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. N.a~ of strea. and name of river to wh;ch it is tributary
None
15" lakes. Ponds. \oIttllnd areas within or contiguous to project arel:
. peconic Bay
a. !lame i'r1vate Cove off / : b. Stze (tn acre.)
16 What i~ th~ dominant land use and zoning classlflcation within a 1/4 mlle radius of the project (e.g.
~ingle famny residential, R~2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story).
8. PROJECT OESCRIPTION
1. Pt'lysHal dlmensions Ind scale of project (f111 in dimensions as appropriate)
.
Total contlguous acreage owned by project sponsor
1 d 8.63 ... 11
Project acreage deve ope: _____ acres lnltla Yi
3.72
12.35
8.63
acres
acres.
b.
ultimately.
c
Projtct acreage to rema;n undeveloped
d. lengtlJ of project, in miles: N/A
(if appropriate)
e.
If proJ~ct is an I.panston of exist;~1 indlcate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot~
age N/A ; dlveloped .creage N/ A. . d
50/un1mprove 150 cOM)ined for
hu~er of off-str~t parking space~ ew.lstlnJ ; proposed
entire
facility
f.
g. Max1mum vehicular trios generated per hour
h If rt~lJ~ntial: Number and type of housinq unIts:
85
(upoo completion of project)
~ne Fami ly
Two FamIly
Multiple Famlly
Condominium
InH 1,1 1
ut t 1r"j;-e
If
On enta t 1 on
"elghbornood-City-AeglJnal
L',tlmated EI!'oloyment
IS
eOiT \'
.:Ii
Ir"lJ" JI
TOt3 t'\'i"t of talleH "'r-,Y~(;,..j t ".. L'
)1')
f,..et
2.. HOw l'T'\/ch natund materia 1 (1. e. roc~, fCl rth, etc.) will be ren:lved from the sHe -
o
tons
_~cub;c iardS.
l
4.
HOw ~'d"'Y !cres of lJeQetClt Ion
(trees. shrubs, ground co~ers) will be r~ved fro~ 51te. X dcr~s
buffer & wetland
100 years old) or other locallY-lmportant vegetation be removed ~y t~IS
to be created
areas
Wl11 any mature forest (over
prOltct? ______yes ______No
.
S. Art tl1Prr, any plans for re-vegetat1on to reolace tnat removed during construction? ~Yes "0
6. If slngle enase project: Anticipated perlod of construction ~montns. (lncludlnq demolltlonl
7. If Ml.Jlti.!"hased oroject: a. Total nllnber of ohases anticioated N/A No.
b, Anti~ioated aate of comnence~ent phase _____month ______vear (jncluO:~1
demol i tion)
c. Approximate comoletion date final phase montn .----yeaf'".
d. Is phase 1 finanCiall" dependent on subseouent Chases.? _____Yes _No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? _____yes ~No
9. Number of Jobs generated: during construction ~; after proJect is complete 15.
10.
Nuncer of jobs elimin.ted by this project
o
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or f.c111ties? ~Yes ______No. If yes, exolaln:
12. I. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes _No.
b.
If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.)
Sewage/storm
N/A
water
c.
If surface disposal name of stream lnta WhlCh effluent will be discharged
13. Will surfac~ area of existing lakes. pondS, streams, bays or otner surface waterways be increased or
~ecreased by proposal? _____yes ~No.
14. !s prOject or any portion of project locate~ 1n the 100 year flood olaln? ~Yes _____No
15. 4. Does project lnvolve disDosal of sol1d ","aste? ~Yes _No
b. If yes. will an existing solid \ooIaste dls')osal faCIlity be used? _Yes ~o
c.
If yes, give name: Southold Landfi1~ location County Road 27/Southo1d
d, ~1l1l lIny wastes not go into a se'Wilge disposal svstem or into a sanitary landflll? _Yes __,",0
16. Will prnject use herbicides or 0~stlc;des1 _Yes .2.-~o
17. \ojil] project routinely produce odors (IOOre than one hour oer aaj)? Yes ~No
18. wlil project produce operating nOlse exceeding the local ambIence noise levels? _____yes ~NO
19. '1.1111 oroject result in an increase 1M energy use1 ~Yes _'io. If yes. indicate type's) _
Ii"ating, cooling and electric
zc
it ...Her suooly is from wells indlcat.e pU~Dlng caPdclh N/A
ga I s/fT11nute
2i l ~..11 antlcinated ...,Her usaqe pel" dd,ll. )J~30 _Qals/dav.
22
,';,,""q
.
lJha ~ 1 S dorn r'ldnt Z(\fllrHj
..,
'tlcatlQr. of S1tf'~
Ind.
~ 5 r:' ,; ;,Jf:iec1 " l'
rn'SC'lt ZOf'llfl"
_.c-Light
No
I nd.
b
Curre'lt SOe(I'l:
z ~ ,~ T r: ;~
',flCjtlcr of 51t~
d
I f roD, lnd1 C j' e j("
/-1-1 c;ene 1 d 1 Mu 1 t
Residence
2~
:..~; ~ .- :' 'I & 1 S
.
a.
Is any Federal pemit requIred?
b. Does pro]ect involve State or ~ederal fun~ing or flnanclng?
les
c. local 3nd Regional approvals:
City, Town, Village Board
City. Town. Village Planning Board
City, Town, Zoning Board
(ity. County Health Department
Other local agencies
Other regional agencies
State AQen_Cles
Federal Agencies
c. !'1r,:)P....XnO,..Al DETAILS
,a~t!(n any additional information as Ny be need
!c~~r~~ t~D4Cts associated with the
~~~~~ to ~1tigate or aVOid t~em.
~Yes
.
No
Approval Required
(V.s. No) (Typ.)
Yes
Yes....
Y..es.-
Y..es.-
Ves-
Yc'-_
Y..es.-
Y.es..
SubmHtal
(Oat.)
Rezoning
S.L~Plcm.. --
~~priAl Exception
wer-warer
~!:r;r~rus teet,
~ 'D:~J.c:anninq Omm.
!1S D.O.A.
~NO
Approval
(Oat.)
to c 14 r11 y your proj ec t. If there are or may be any
ase discuss sucn impacts and the measures wh1cn can be
T:TCE;
P~~~A~[R'S SI~~ATURE:
R[p'i~ $[NTlNG:
DATE .
~.AAl1"
~nd Design Associates & The Land Use Company
,
(June 71 '1985
\. .-/
,-
.
.
TOWN BOARD. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Petition of
SOUTH PORT DEVELOPMEN~
to the Town Board of the Town of South old.
NOTICE
TO:
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Town of South old to
requesta chanqe of zone from "c" Liqht Industrial District to "M-l" General
Hultiple Residence District to permit development of a motel complex.
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows: Bounded North by B'avview Realty Development Corp.. Kilian.
Knizak, Suda and Jacobs: West by Boyle. Beauqard, Weisman. Clinton.
Pacifico and Southold Shores Association, Inc.: South by Southold Bay:
East by Bayview Realty Development Corp.
3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district:
'c" Light Industrial District
4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above-described property be placed in the
following zone district classification: "M-l" General Multiple Residence District
5. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will
be filed in the South old Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there
examine the same during regular office hours.
6. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the
Town Board; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing
in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of
Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap-
pear and be heard at such hearing.
"Dated: June 6, 1985
By:
Peti i ner
,
"
~.'l
~
Jr.
Post Office Address:
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971.
0"'\
':.\
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
ADDRESS
NAME
Southold Shores Association
Anna Pacifico
Robert H. & Blanche Clinton
Henry C. & Charlotte Weismann
Edouard & Carol Beaugard
Thomas P. & Doris Boyle
Joseph W. Suda
Murray & Selma Jacobs
Joseph & Marie Knizak
William Kilian
Bayview Development Corp.
41 Front Street, Greenport, NY 11944
90 Broadway, Garden City Park, NY 11040
Beachwood Lane, Southold, NY 11971
41-A Moriches Road, st. James, NY 11780
274 Sunset Avenue, Englewood, NJ 07631
35 Walker street, Malvernp; NY 11~hS
P.O. Box 65, Greenport, NY 11944
5 Diamond Drive, Plainview, NY 11803
Sage Boulevard, Greenport, NY 11944
Sage Boulevard, Greenport, NY 11944
c/o J. Forchelli, P.O. Box 31, Mineola, NY
11501
.. -
.- -. -
--
rr ::!
,.,., 1 fa
0 e~
Fe "'-
I! ~i
iI: "-~
;:: "'..
"''''' ~
a: ~9 :
Ju l.JJ'- 0",: ..
(J :::..~ f
..JJ G:' 8$ ~ ,
'" o "'~
u.. ~~ :
a. .... ~g ~ <<l
Q, "'"' .!
G:i ~/-..
(J ~o ~
III <> "" . .~
a: "" ~
1I J /
- .,& 5
J ~
~
;;
STATE OF NEW YORK:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
ss.:
. residing at Tagliabue Road, Shoreham, New York
. being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 6th day
of June ,19 85 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse
side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names;
that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the cur-
rent assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at
Southold, New York ;that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified)
NKJroeJt}<:mail.
WILBUR KLATSKY
1Jr~)0tJ;j:-
WILBUR KLATSKY
Sworn to me this 6th
day of June , 19.J!.L.
~1orL .DcliA~
Notary Public
MARY E. DAWSON
NOlARY PUBi Ie, State of New York
No. 52-4543721, Suffolk Cou.A~
Term Expires March 30. 19.:t:./
.
'7
~ .'-,
C'...."'~ "
1'\~ . \
,',', ,
v '--J
~ ...
.
.
.
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
June 6, 1985
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Re: Application for Change of Zone from
"CO Light Industrial District to "M-l"
General Multiple Residence District
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of our application
to the Town Board in connection with the above-captioned
matter.
Very truly yours,
1f1I~~
l'ii lbur Klatsky
Consultant
med
Encs.
cc. :
Southold Town Planning
Board Members
~", "
SOUTHPOR~ DEVBLOPMENT
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
June 6, 1985
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Re: Application for Change of Zone from
"c" Light Industrial District to "M-l"
General Multiple Residence District
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of our application
to the Town Board in connection with the above-captioned
matter.
Very truly yours,
1UI~~
Nilbur Klatsky
Consultant
med
Encs.
cc.: Southold Town Planning
Board Members
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
Hobart Road
Southold, New York 11971
June 6, 1985
Southold Town Clerk's Office
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Att: Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
Re: Application for Change of Zone from "c"
Light Industrial District to "M-l" General
Multiple Residence District
Dear Mrs. Terry:
After meeting with the Southold Town planning Board to
discuss the subject application (Young's Marina), the
preliminary recommendation was that the program met with
the proposed goals of the Master Plan. Accordingly, they
suggested that we make application to the Town Board for
the above change of zone to permit the development of a
motel-restaurant program along with the reconstruction
and expansion of the existing marina.
This application deals primarily with the motel-restaurant
aspect and, at some future date, if the change of zone is
granted, will permit the applicant to make application to
the Planning Board as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals
for the development of the above program.
Accordingly, we are formally submitting the attached
application for a change of zone from "c" Light Industrial
District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District.
Please find attached the following documents:
.Judith T. Terry
June 6. 1985
Page 2
1. Three copies of the application and explanation
for the requested change of zone. which application
has been duly signed and notarized;
2. Six copies of a map to scale of the subject
property, drawn to the requirements of the
Suffolk County Planning Commission;
3. Accurate boundary description. which is annexed
to the application as Exhibit "A";
4. Six copies of a completed Town of Southold
Environmental Assessment Statement, Part I;
5. Original Notice to adjacent property owners,
to which are attached the receipts for certified
mail showing service of same upon all adjacent
property owners;
6. Application fee of $500.00.
If there are any additional questions or materials required,
please call us at your convenience.
very truly yours,
\~ilbur Klatsky
Consultant
(516) 765-2954
WK:med
Encs.
cc.: Southold Town planning Board
CASE NO: ......... ..............
STATE CF NEW YORK PETITION
TOWN OF SOtJTHOLD
L" THE. MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SOUTHPOH1' DEVeLOPMENT
FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDl\IEM' OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDL"'l-
A!,;CE Of' THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COlJNTY, NEW YORK.
....................... ... ..... .....'O................... . ...........
TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:
1. ~ ....s.2!!!~.~9.~~...~.~:Y.~.~?p.~~.~~......... ,residin~ ut.~~.~.~~~. .~~.~~.:....~.~~:.~~:.~.
(Insert name of petitioner)
Suffolk County. New York, the undersigned, am the owner uf certain real property situated at
~/S ;age Boulevard
Southold, New YOI'k d I I d d Ib d t II .
.............................................................. an more part cu arl)' bounded an eseI' e as 0 OWl.
DESCRIPTION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "1\"
2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Tow'I "I SOlllhold I" e1IUI'bc, modify and
ar;a'n,j lhl: Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of SOllllwld, Sutfoll, Counly, New York,
Ir.du..!::l'; the Buildinb Zone Mups heretofore made a pun lh.'reof, as fuJluws.
r(l>jl.H..~~t. a chanql.: of zone trom Ill'" Light 11, Il.:,tl i(.il 1,;:.1 I j t
to "?-l-}II General Multiple Residence DistJl 'I
'..,
.~
J Such rcqur't i. ltIadc lor the lollowinl; rea 'OIlS : To IJermi t the development of
a motel complex pursuant to Article v, "M-I" General Multiple
Residence District, Subsection B(4), Special Exception by Board
of Appeals and subject to site plan aIJproval by the Planning Board.
This application is consistent with the Proposed Zoning Regulations
and Master plan prepared by the Planninu Board and submitted to
the Town Board for their consideration. The subject property of
this application has been designated within the Marine Business
District (M-B) of the Proposed Zoning Regul~tions. The appli-
cant hereby requests that, if the Proposed Zoning Regulations
are adopted during the processing of the subject application,
then the applicant be permitted to continue with this existing
application subject to the regulations provided within the
proposed Marine Business District (M-B) as may be amended.
By:
(I. S.)
tlr
,} G(Jh F
STATE OF NEW YORK, )
) SS-
COUKTY OF SUFFOLK, )
JOSEPH FISCHETTI, JR.
,~9.t: . f;.9!l.\\1P.9!.~. .Q~:v:~ ;t,qP!11~fl.\ , .
, IILl:,G Ill'l " :'>\VOW., del'(d; an,j says that
bt: I~ lhe petiti..:.nt::f in th~ within actillll. that Ill' L;L~ rCJd ILl: forcbolLci' Petilli~J1 ..nd knnwl
the contenls lher~,d, that the ~amc i:> LIllI...: to Li~, lid':) (1\
kd,~t, (' 'l'J-l J~, tu tl.t: llI~ttii~l
III till (' 0:;11Ill Lt. Lc:lll:l,cs Il
tf,(;'l.:1n St.:ltcJ toJ k: .:Jllct;cJ ...)11 ii.idlm,~ti';'i dllll bclit, ,ilid II.
to lIe true.
(I
I
(' I
I /
; III F i if "li'ofT
"
~) )
I.
~ ..; ii lD l,t:, :
I.,
tl! 11. d",i
, I
. /~1, ~'I .~
/
NuL.l y l'uLlit:
.Ii;,I.1V
1) p.l,
,........
! ,I
" . ;t. (. ~ . . : j. ~ >. .
""kY l lJ"';~J~
N01Alh f'ln.!lll:. :",.1, ~l IIItllro YUI~
Nt :'l"'(,~JJ';I, :;"j,l~k ~
letm lIplr.. MlICl. 30, 1-..=;
~ ..,
----r
I
i
~",
.
.
AlL m<\T CfJ':L\IN PLar, PIECE OR PARn~1. OF LAND, with the bui1dl"LS cmd
irrprQVel1-ents thereoo erected, sitmte, lying ilnd being ilt Arsharrorroquc,
near Greenport, Town of Southold, Comty of Suffolk and State of New
York, nnre particularly b=ded and described as follows:
BEGTh."'ITNG at a m:murent set at the northeasterly comer of land now or
fc:::rrerly of Zehner adjoining land nm; or fonrLcdy of Sage;
RUNNING thence along said land no;; or fonoc>rly of Sage, t1.;o courses; (1)
South 670 41' 40" East 25.11 feet; thence (2) Sc,uth 160 56' 40" \lest 777
feet, nnre or less, to ordinary high \"ater lTl'lrk of Peconic Bay;
TIlEN\..'E northwesterly along said high water mark, 28 feet nnre or less,
to a point 25.0 feet westerly En,,, tLe last dl'scribed line measured at
rig.'l.t angles thereto, to said lan,! (I! Zehner;
TIlENCE along said land of Zelmer, Nonh 160 5D' 40" East 760 f"er, rrore
or less, to the point of begimlin,;.
SAID parcel of land being 25 feet wide throughout.
BElllG AND ItrrENDED ro BE the sarr-e premises conveyed to the Sellers by
Deed dated Septerrber 1st, 1981 and recorded in Suffolk County Clerk 's
Office on Septenber 11, 1981 in Liber 9067 cp 557.
1',11 IF I"
,
~:~
">Wl'"
AlL 11IAT CERTAIN PWr, PIECE OR PARCEL OF llIND, with the buildings and
improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk Cotmty, New York, bOtn1ded and described as follONS:
PARCEL 1. BEGINNING at a concrete nDnLlllent set on the southerly side of
a 16 feet wide Right of Way where it is intersected by the easterly line
of the lands nON or formerly of Killion and approximately 1740 feet
easterly along the said Right of Way fran State Road: Thence South 67"
41' 40" E:1st along the southerly line of said Right of Way 428.73 feet
to a concrete =urrent and the wcsterlv line of the lands nON or
formerly of Sage; Thence South 160 56" 40" West along said lands 760
feet to the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay; Thence westerly
along said high water mark on a tie line course and distance North 600
16' 20" West 481.58 feet to the east(,rly side of the former,entrance to
the basin; Thence North 200 28' 30" East along the fonrer inlet to the
basin, continuing along the basin and further continuing along lands nON
or formerly of Killion 694.83 feet to the concrete monurrent set on the
southerly line of said Right of Way at the point or place of beginning,
together with all right title and interest in and to two anns of land
abutting on the west the course North 200 28' 30" East aforelrentioned
and jutting into the basin;
TOGE'lllER \vith non exclusive easencnt of Right of ~lay to pass and repass
for all purposes over the 16 feeL wide roadwa\' hereinbefore rrcntioned
n:rning frem wherever said roadway cmtacts the premises hereinbefore
described in a general westerly direction to State Road (the main
higb.ay) .
PARCEL II. BEGINNlllG at a point on the onJindl'Y high water mark of
Peconic Bay at the southeasterly comer of Lot 52, Map of Southold
Shores, Suffolk County Map #3853; from said point of beginning running
along the ensterly line of said Lot 52 and passing through a concrete
=urrent North 200 08' 40" West 40 feet IIDre or less to the shore of the
basin; thence in a general northeasterly direction through the waters of
the inlet and along the shore of said basin on a line generally parallel
..lith a course North 750 IS' 00" East 325 feet IlDre or less to Parcel I;
thence along Parcel T to the ordinal'Y high W.,I.'r mark of Peconic Bay iII1d
through the \Jaters of the inlet on ,. line gel1.-1'<.I]ly parallel ..,jth the
course South 750 IS' 00" West 325 in't IIDr,' 01' less to the point or
place of beginning.
TOGE'llJER with all the dght, till" "lld intler",;l of Zehn"r t" t.l." lands
under t11" w<.Iters of Peconic Hi1'; iin.! the b"sin .1l1d bet:VJeen th"se i,odies
of water.
T<X;EIHER \,:ilh all th" easemenU, illld ilppurtUI.I"'.,:, ill :;,dd (kui j.;ilvick:d
and subject to the: covenants t.hc}'dn.
BEING AND nH'EIIDED TO BE the ~im,e Plulli5e:; ""'1'1'''1,-d 10 th" SeJ [, Ii oy
Deed dated October 5th, 1970 ilnd n:mrded in ::"ffnll, Collllt! (j, II'..
Office on Oi'tober 21:;1, ]970 ill I ihlr 6821' '11,:'/,
~:<,...':"~: "',",M"".."'''';
;Ill. 'llIAT CEIITAIN PUJr, PIECE OR PARCEL OF l..AN'D, situate, lying and be~
at Arsh=m1Que, Town of Southold, Co-Jnty of Suffolk, State of New Yorlt,
being bounded and described as follows:
BH;INNING at a point where the division line between land of William
Ki lian and Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot right of
\J.W which said point is also the Northeast comer of land of William
Ki lianl
Running thence along said division line of said lands in a southerly
Ji rection 125,0 feet to the point of beginning;
Rluming thence along land of Zehner South 200 28' 30" West 50 feet;
fO-nming thence North 690 31' 30" West 50.0 feet to other land now or
t0rrrerly of Sage;
\{Lllming thence North 650 28' 30" Eas t 70.71 feet to the point and place
of BEGINNING.
'l'OGrniER with a perpetual navigational right of way over other lands now
or fonnerly of Sage in the basin adjoining the subject premises for
ingress and egress to the subject premises in ccmron with others.
PARCEL 2:
ALL 'mAT C::.R:IAIN PLCYl', PIECE OR PARC1~L OF LAND, situate, lying and being
at Arsham:>maque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New
York, being bounded and described as foll'Ms:
bEGINNING elt a point where the division line hd:ween land of William
Kilian and the land of Zehner intersects the southerly line of a 16 foot
light of \Jay which said point is also th,' Northeast comer of land of
\;illiam Ki lian;
RlU1ning th<:llce ahlng said division line ill a Southerly din,lli0n with
its prol,)\1i;Lltion of said dividon lim' 'Jj'J,O ft.e! to the Ilortheast
,',.1mer vi land n,)\~ 01- forrrerl '/ of S,l,\('. I h,: ",j d point of ucgirming;
l'Jmning t h<:nce Sduth 20" 28' 30" \-ics t <)li. () f cd,;
h\ilIDing ti',...:nce ~u\lthwcst ill(J:l~. the ::1t,lrl' i ill( ()f IJipC':-; C~)'Jl', 1',0.0 feet;
Kunning thence N(\rth 34< 24' 10" \J,'sl 2'n.O \,.,.t to ]<JlH! (JI Ze!J1cr;
Rlllmillg th"I1.:(, South 69" ]]' .JO" Fil';\ 3'.') 1",1 to th' l,,-,ir.t or place of
BEGINNIIJG,
'l'OGE'ffiEl{ with a perpctl131 n.lvi/'."tional lil\ht d way over ILLer ],mds now
or forn",dy of Sage in the 1>.1,,111 adiuillil1l~ \h: [',\Jbject pr"lIli~t:, for
ingress and egyess to the sl:bi""\ I'Il'Wj"." 11, ,'llmUl wirh "\h,1':,,
llEING MHI n:nlHii'1) '1\) bE II.' :,'lIill' l'1'u',i .,':, ''''I'ley'''! ." Ii.,
D<.>ed ,Llt,,\ December 211\h. I''''! iJ',,j n'''',,'\,,'\ III ~:ulf 11 C.
Office O:1!,imliit-y 1l1. 1 (HI \ !" Lih,.j 9."" (i' : lb.
. ,I ($ by
i.lerk's
~:,"'" ",Ji'
All.. 'nIAT CERTAIN PlOT, PIECE OR PAkClJ, OF lAND, with the buildings and
~roITem2nts thereon erected, situate, lying and being at ArshamJrnaque,
in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described
as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly boundary line of the premises now
or formc>rly of Zehner which point is South 200 28' 30" ~lest 175 feet
from a monument at the northwesterly corner of said land now or formc>rly
of Zehner; from said point of beginning nmning thence along said
westerly boundary line of land now or formc>rly of Zehner South 20. 28'
30" West 400 feet: thence into the waters of the "basin" three courses
as follows:
(1) North 69. 31' 30" West 350 fCd; thence
(2) North 20. 28' 30" F~'lst 400 fcel; thcncl'
(3) South 690 31' 30" East 350 feet to said vlesterly line of the
premises now or formerly of Sage and the point or place of begiming.
TOCE'llIER with all of the right, title and interest, if any, of the
Seller, in and to any and all strips and gores of land, including land
under water, between the above described premises and other lands now or
formc>r1y of the Seller.
BEING AND INTENDED TO BE the san~ premises conveyed to the Sellers by
Deed dated the 2nd day of De,~enDer, 1970 and recorded in Suffolk CCU1ty
Clerk's Office on Decerrl:Jer 11, 1970 in Liber 6853 cp 432.
'---~'--"
TOIVK OF SOUTHOLD
[A,
[NYJRO;I~ENTAl AS\~SSHENl PART J
Project InfOrMit1oF!
Horlel: T.il oo~~~ ,. Ot'l~npd to .sstst tn dfter~1"t"9 ~het~er tn. letton ,roposed may hlV' I Itgnlftc.nt
effect on th. t'I'lI":',l'IiI"nt. Pipn, CDl"lC)ptp the entire Oau Shut. Answer, t.;! tl'lese Questions wl1l be cor.S1dertd
as Plrt 0' the ~lt~lt;on for aPDrev.l Ind ~y b. ,ubJ.ct to further Y!rtfiel~lon Ind oubltc reYiew. Pro~tdf
.fiy .ddltiOft.l lftforr4t;on you ~el'tvt ~tl1 be needed to comoltt~ PlRTS 2 and 3. 0
:; ;: :.~t::u:~.t CC~OICtlt" of t~e EA~ .ill be dependent on In'onm~tlon current:y .vatl.bl! and will not
S;"h:.,aU .nd ;::~1~;S::~~\~;t~~~:~t10atl0", If l"fo",,"Hl0n rt'lulr1no Such addltiOMl work 11 YftI..,.1I4tlt,
2'.E 0' 'ROJECT:
NO.[ OND ODC~ESS 0' OWNER (If niff.r.ot)
.:;O(1'I'HPORT MOTEL & ~ARINA
("'.'"e )-..-. --..
A~).r\\ AND N~E Of APPLICANT,
Titrittl-~
SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
0U-.e)
':obart Road
~J
rr:r.1
(State)
(ZIp)
IU"N=SS PHONE:
;;outhold, New York
\ T1 (State)
11971
(ZIp )
r,SC~IPTlC'l O~ PllOJrCT' (Bri.fly ducrib. typo of projlCt or octiM) Chan'Je of zone from .C.
; ioht Industrial Distdct to "M-l" Genera] Multiple Residence District
'0 permit development of motel-restaurant and reconstruction of
"'1 sting marini'l>lr~sr COMPLETE E~,H qurSTIOtI . lodiclt. N.A. if not oPPl1coblo)
A SITr DESCRIPTION
(P~y,fc.' stttin; of OVl~.il P~J!ct. both drvrloned .nd und~~tlootd .reas)
y
I.
Cen.ral Chlrl(ter of tne land:
r~nf'!"al1.~ unlfo"" ,lope
Gt~erall1 unev,n .nd ~llt"o ., trr.?~I.r
..
Prese"t 1."d use: l'roAn _._' Industri.l ._ . (~rcl.1 . . Suburban I lIlur.l . '"rest
_, Agr;cultur. ..1L ' ~thor ....l.lgJ;ina and sUI?Pol'rrecreatiOi'ial faCTT! tl es .
3.72 ae. bottom area
8.63 at'. 11["land area
iOUlacl"u4jf of o~OJ~ct H"ea:]~.!itr"ts.
ADOr"Oktt".atf Icru9r~ Prelientl.~ .After Cornrltt;on
M<<.dow or 8ru'ihhnd (. * ~_~("re', (I *0 * ~lCrt\
Presently After COMOlet1or
0** .*r
lj.ster Surfdce Are.~, ~ ~ 3 ~_,_l_lCres * 3_.j ]IC"'~\l
~fl~tyetated (rock,
PHtn or fj 11) 0
FO"'~Htd 0
Q..~_ a crt"" (i .JL _ac:r-e~
Aar1cult~r.1 0
.. !l.terllQ.. __Q _lcrr1
Q..,., !l r t..
acre'\.
'I~t 1.."4 (Fr.\hwater rr
Tld,1 Ai n,r Art'cl~\
~A, ~~ (lr c.c.l. ~ O,l,i)
RoadS, bullaln~\
.nJ IHher ;1hli!d
1LJr r~ces 0
acruQ 1._.,1.~c"~~
.o"oll 6. ~(j ocr.,
-.,..-
,..1 parkIng]
n , '/
() _ .-troef: () ~~d(rf'~
(In-,,~( (lf1rj;cHe ry...eJ)
['Ii J; 'I,r()' 'j : J an
1 .1.1
:::;C';I
It,t I \ "'''~domlflA...t "l
~'t. i " ~'r("" . PC t ~ It ... >
.
""e: "trIO ~"',: (
'y ~
"
.: :' ",:~ ': ~. ",' .", ,.r, 1'" _ t '. to>
.....4:. '1. ':t';' ~ 0 ~
:,LLl..lv..'rI
I', ."!'II
"
.
*Ma:::,:'ina I'\I:'C.~i
..~otel-Hl',.t"l!
t llj('t ill[:
int
:~~.:;.~,,~
6{ .. ,.".,."
Lr>i~'"
r<\;?'''
.
16';vr'O.1t"ll1te- p.erce-ntloe of "rope. . oroJect !lIte "lth lotc..ur:.
reHtv' _"
O-h~
] On.
}lLl'\.
I
15: Or
i~ ~rOJl!'ct contl9I1OUl-to. or contil" A bulJJln" or ille ll~tld on the ~n1onal ~fgl~Ur of HIstorIC
! lIcet.? .,.s X No
- -
.",t " I~. d'Plft 10 I~. w.ltr lib!.? ()- 8 .teel
L~ hunt1ng or f1sh1n~ opportunlt;e-s presently 'list 1~ tn~ prOJ.ct 'r~.? ~__fe~ _____No
iC Lk:,t~ project sit. conta;" Iny specle!. of pllnt or .n1m.1 II f. tnu H 1dent1fltd as thrutened or
~'.'~I!!!""~d . --.:YfS ~:lo. ICcording to . Identth "cn lPtclttil
--..---..-.-.--
11
11
;,,.., t~n.t Iny unique or unusual land forms on t~f prOJfct SoH.? {~e. c~1ffs, (ll,jnes. other geologic. I
f;;rrottlMs ~ _Yes ---.1t.No. (Descrlbe ___._.____ _______
)~ t~t prOject lite~re$ently used by tne community or n~I~~bornood 4~ an open ~p'ce or recreltion
art4 . _____yes _____No.
:).(lU t"le pr!<',nt lite offer o~ include SCtnl, VI,wS. or "IHH known to te llnPOrU/it to Hit COllllunlt1~
Yes -=-110
~trf.ms wit~ln or contiguous to project ,red
1)
I
:14
.
~.~ of Itrea. Ind nlme of r;ver to ~~lcn it Iii trlbu[;ry
LIJlil:
--_.~--^~
H
l.lts. Ponds. ~tl.nd artal within or contlguou. to project Ir..:
Peconic Bay
.. II.... Private Cove oft / .' b. Silt (I. .e...)
-. ---____.~.4
ii! .~H t, t~e dolfthllnt land use Ind lonlng C.lcHSlflc,t101l lloltl'1UI 1114 mlle r.dlys of tl'l, project (e 9
1\"i)lt fam1 Iy rt"dentul. R.Z) and the Hlltlt of dhtlop",ent (..g. 2 story).
. ~bjiCT C!SC~IPTlQll
r''''yS1C''\ ChMfofts1,",s ,nd se.le of prOJect {f:l1 Jr. dlm~r;~lon~ Ii 'P~roprlitel
.
r'lll cotlttguoul Icruge owned by project l>j.)onl>or
I d 8. Ii J II
~rC.lt.;:t l'rll91 den ope: _ ..::ref. lr;1 t 11 J,
_ :..~ :~___ m..
8.61
_.._ ACre, ultlfllltely.
"
rrcJtct ICrt." to rtmj1n undeveloped
,~r;:tl. of project. in tAiles: NIl'..
/.;
(11 jDproprljl~i
If ;'I"'()(tst h In tap.ns.l0n of e"lsttr~, VJIC4tt
'-it ;~, A ,developed acreage ____._~
l'lI
!...."t:.~~ of off~str"~t. oarldng sp..;:t!. eklst I'J
pt:rLcllt ct t''';J.J' ~IQIi prOpi;.clJ tlwllJl"J 5'tIol.rt fClot.
Ul.ill'i') uv.. I
i propUlt:J
i ~'.l~ ~e~1,ul.r tr1QS gener4te~ p.r hOur
b 'j
(...Pun '(1Ilj;idLJn vt ~rOJHIJ
" U (:1 JIIJ 1 lit.', 1 iJ r t lit 1 r t,;
f de i IiI 'I
I' r't:'~l,p;1tl.l: ~ul"t:!",. and t.,.o;l' of rJ"t;.,
~ne F'i'l11 r
T..o ~ a" ! 1
'1"lt i'l: i.J;;';II,
l ~ : lC.T.l r "rr
; I~ It I It
'''nt
.
i"ln ent.i: '
't19~t.'::r"t,lOC.( I ~,
"
I',. J'
(d till;,
~
I
~
0'~
/:"'"
:,.::.." .'
II, ,,'
1
Ho- MuC~ ft.tur^l m.terl'
e. 1'00., eartl'l, He ) 1oI111 be r~wed ,.
ttlt S iu ..
o
tOftf,
_CL.-tubjt lord',
"OW "'"f'l' .cre\ of l,Itqet.t1ur: (trff~. s"r\;e~, ljro"lid (Qw,r\) 011111 bl rff"()l,Ied fr~ ~1te. X ICru
buffer' "'Wetland area
IQO Y"" oldJ O' ol".. 10tall'-'~00rUnt .a90latlon be ._.ed b, t""
to be created
.
Vtl' IA1 e.turt forest (over
,rOJect? _____Ie' _____No
~ Are tl'l~rr. any phl'\\ for ,.t-....egdlltlurl to reOllet tnH r'l'WJlI.d dUrI"1I co"Uructlon~ -1L-Ye\ _"0
If ""91. D~'S' proJect: Antlc1Dlted p,rlod of ,on~tructlon ~month'. (lncludlnq dl~11tl0nl
If l'IUtt1.~hutd DrO.lect~ .. ToUI nlltlbrr of pnuu l"tlC.IP.ttdN/A No.
b. Antl;1r..ted dltr L.' com.nel,",nt phue _month _.lur (1",lwCll"9
d'l'I\Cl, t, on)
c. AporOllmJtt COMcl,tlon dUe f,nlll pnue II'IOnth ---1ur,
d. h ph4H 1 fl",",1411.. dlp,nd.nt on subuQuent Dhuu.? _hi _...
. ~tll ,'..t1ni occur dur1ng constructlonl ~~~\ ~~
i Nymb.,.f Jobs tfnerlt.d: dur1n9 constru~tlon _~~ ; ,fter project 'I c~lltl ~.
10 ,,-,., Joh e'I,nntl.d by thl> proj.cl O.
II Will .,.Ject requIre reloclt,on of .n~ proj.,t. or f.tllltle,1 ~,., _____No If Ie,. ''''llft'
Il. Is avrfac. or 'ublurflce liquId ..,te d"po.al In.ol..df X -_.
I. _'n
.. If tI'. 1nd1clt. typt of Wlst! ()rw'Qe. InGllun.l f Itc.1 sewage/storm water
t. If lurface dtspoul n."" at !.trUI' ,"to wnl(r. .'fluent ~111 bl ducn.Mjed N/A
Ij will ,.rflee area of e,l.t,ng la..,. pono.. 'lr..~'. b.y' or otner 'urface ..terway. be Incre.,ed or
Cttre.... by proDoul? _Yu _~_.~O
14, 1, prOJlct cr ,ny port1on of project IOCHrj 1M th. 100 ytlr flood gl,,"' ~y" _~o
I~ I. Do., pruJ.ct ;nvo'~t dlSDOS.l of S0110 w.ite7 ~__Y.' _____NO
b. If yll. wt11 .n Ixhting sot,a .ash Qls'"loul fH,lHy b, uud? 'IS __No
t. If yn. gl.e n....: Southold La.:::!!~~ \ 10cHlon County Road 27/Southold
d. lull Ir'i wutes not go Into . H"'~9f JtSDos,.il SVSUffl or Into. SI"ltar) hncHdP _'" __ho
\,
w~ll prftJfct us. herbicides Dr D~~t' .ldt!'
, t~
x ~o
II Wll, prOJe~t rout,nely prod.JLt Q(]"'f \I'..rt 0'1111 Olit:' nOur oef a41;~ _11$ ...1._NO
14 wilt proj.c.t prOduCt operltln~ nOl)!. eHf't'ol"9 tr't loejl .mrninL' n01U 11'i11,' ____." ~Ito
I; 10/'11 prOJe;:t rUult 1n an lnUe,l'lf
~..ti .!2lL.coolin;J. ~~\~:
~o
If ye>. ,na"'l' t,oel,)
If ..,ter ~,,:..olJ 1~ fr"om ...tll, '1'.1
']dh t"lrule
';' TOt..l ant.'~q~.t.i.l ...Her l.o',.l.]<
2.., . , 111';..: " dc" " ,
~...r ,"',: ~ ~t'
" .
: . 1",1
In,l.
"~I,1 '.11.1 111<1
I.d
Iii
, .
f"li 11
I' ;,)
.,-
r-
........
~",.
"'~4:': t. f) ,n, F~der.l
f' 1 t reOl< 1"~iJ I
b. OutSo prc:ljec;t ir,\,Oi..,t :.tHt (ir fr,kr.j] 1"/,, "9 or fHlof1llng1
} t' ~
__NO
c. lOCll 'nd Reg;ondl appr"ov.li
CIty, To-n, Vlll.go 80.rO
CIty, Town, Vll1.oo Pl.nn,ng 80.ro
City, Town, 20"1"9 BOArd
CIty, County Ho.lth Oop.rtmtnt
Otner local agencies
Other re9,',nal 'genelfs
Stlt! Aq'nc1ts
Feder41'Agenct.s
j :VCn".T10NAl. DfTAllS
}:
Aj.JprovIl AfQU 1 red
(I.,. ~,,) (Type)
Y(:ti
YeiL
Y..cs-
'l'.ea
Ve.s
Yc~:
~
Yes.
IliS
Sub..ltt.l
(O.te)
Ilezoning
SLtiLllCUl... --
aception-
wer-wa er
_-'~ r~n~~mm.
lIS D.O~
x ~o
Appro..l
(O.te)
ttt. ~ .ny .ddtttontl information IS ~y be nefd~ to Cllrlt, lour proJ~~t If there Ire or may bt Iny
t.;;..t H 111l'\PICU .u.cC1Ittd with the proposal. P'~Ut dUCLIU ~ucn 1mD.ct~ and the I'\euures ~htch Cln be
:"r t, .It'g.te or ..otd,:~;,{ ;11 t-~/'
",..;t"S SIGNATURE !/;I/Pf'f( tI// _
"Pd ,y;...;r....lA~i _~____.. ____._
',.",,'~TING, ~and Desian ASBOd..t<;:,.. The I.md UStl Company
CH, (,JUne 7, 1985