Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-53.-5-12.5
MAJOR SUBDIVISION Complete application received '/'f~;~,~-,u,~- Yield map received ~ ,~ Application reviewed at work session Applicant advised of necessary revisions Revised submission received Sketch plan approval -with conditions Lead Agency Coordination SEQRA determination Preliminary maps received Preliminary maps reviewed at work session -revisions Road profiles/drainage submitted -revisions Road profiles/drainage reviewed be Engineer Sent to CounW Planning Commission Receipt of County Planning Report Review of SCPC report Preliminary hearing Preliminary approval -with conditions Sent to Fire Commissioner Receipt of firewell location Notification to applicant to include on final map Draft Covenants and Restrictions received Draft Covenants and Restrictions reviewed Filed Covenants and Restrictions received Bond estimat~ submitted Bond adopted by PB Bond adopted by TB Payment of bond Payment of inspection fee Determination of park & playground fee Park & playground fee adopted by TB Payment of park & playground fee Open Space documents Documents reviewed by TA Receipt of mylars and paper prints with Health approval Final Public Hear,i~g Approval of subdivision -with conditions Endorsement of subdivision STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (SE('~A) STATUS SHEET H ~!" ~ -' TYPE OF ACTION: ~I?Jil ~ PE 2 UNLISTED LEAD AGENCY: I P__LA~_NN-I~_G BOAR~)I OTHER: INITIAL DETERMINATION: NON-SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE i~F(, _LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION: UNCOORDINATED REVIEW / /__ COORDINATED REVIEW - START OF 30 DAY COORD. PROCESS COMMENTS RECEI~D FROM: AGENCY: ,~ c~c~ AGENCY:~ ~ ~ ~ AGENCY: ~5 ~+. NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE /__/ CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC..__,~DATE__/__/__ POSITIVEDECLARATION ~ DA~/I~/-zL-: IF POSITIVE DECLARATION ?:~' ~ SC0PING SESSION RECEIPT OF DEIS /__/ DATE DEIS COMPLETE, /__/ //DATE DEIS INCOMPI.KrE, /__/ RECEIPT OF REVISIONS TO DEIS /__/ DATE DEIS COMPLETE__/ /__//DATE DEIS INCOMPLETE, / /.__ RECEIPT OF REVISIONS TO DEIS /__/ DATE DEIS COMPLETE, /__/__//DATE DEIS INCOMPLETE, I__/ START OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DEIS__/ /.__ PUBLIC HEARING ON DEIS / / C0MIVIENTSRECEIVEDFROM: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: AGENCY: END OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR DEIS__/ EElS TO BE PREPARED BY EElS RECEIVED / f.__ EEIS COMPL~, / /.__ ST.~RT OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR EElS ! PUBLIC HEARING ON EEIS /.__./.__ FINDINGS STATEMENT ADOPTED BY PLANNING BOARD VIRON IE A SCOPING SESSION $. PAID / / REVIEW 0FDEIS $. PAID / / ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF DEIS $ PAID / / $ PAID / / $. PAID / / PREPARATION OF EElS $ PAID / / REVIEW OF FEIS $ PAID / /__ APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the To~vn of Southold: PP ision/plat in accordance xvith Article 16 of the Town La~v :md tile Rules and Regulatic~ Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: 1. The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is r ~ot the owner of record of the land nnder application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be Har'bo}w~ew l. and5n9 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A' hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under dc~'ds recorded in Snffolk County Clerk's office as folloxvs: Liber .... 10~3~. .............. Page . ~3~3 ............. On . .1.5. t.]3.9.f.~.aY..'..8?.. Liber Page Liber Page Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ........ as devised under the Last Will and Testament of ....................................... or as distributee 5. The area of the land is . ~33.. 1.!7 ...... 6. All taxes wbich are liens on the land at the date hereof have been paid except . ........ p.{!qt..t.o..d..a.t.e.,, no other ]~ens ex,st. 7. The Iand is encumbered by . .TWO. mortgage (s) as follows: .................................................... (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber . 106¢2 ....... Page . .~3~ ............. in original amount of $..~,00.0.~Q00.. nnpaid amount $ . 3~ 20% 000 ........... held by ..a.t.t. aqh..e.d ............ .............. address (b) Mortgage recorded in Liher . .I.Q~{i~ . l':t ~.. ~.3.-.2.6.~[ .......... in original amount of . J-,.500.,.0.(]0.. nnpaid amonnt $..J.,~0(! 00~3. ..... held by . .K .e y. . B. .a [1.k ............ ............. address .13.7.7..[q0.t.(~r.p/wkw~2~, Is!a~a,.tLy....l~ty.8.8 ............... (c) Mortgage recorded in Liher ........ Page ................ in original amount of unpaid amouut $. .............. · ................. held by ...................... ...................... address 8. There are no other encnmbrances or liens aRainst the land except ... ~l.,q .................. 9. The land lies in the following zoning use di~trlcts Residential-80 10. No part of the land lies under water wh~th~:z ti{lc water, stream, pond water or otherwise, ex- cept 11.551 acres of tide water included as part of Southo~d Bay. 11. The applicant shall at his expense install ali required public improvements. X 12. The land (does) (does not) lie in a \¥ater District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is . Greeqp0rt Water District 13. Water mains will be laid by liscensed contractors to be determined b,v Harborview Rea and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will l)e iustalled by lisceRs, ed.~0r~gri~c3iq~r~..~iQ.b.e..ql~J:~.r, mined .b.~t. Harborview Realty ~ lines] ................................ and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing' said 15. Gas mains will be installed by liscensed contractors determined .b.y. Harborview Realty. and (a) (no) ......................................................... charge will be made for installing said mains. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed hv the applicant to be existing public streets in the Suffolk County Highway system, annex- Schedule "B" hereto, to show same. 17. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by thc applicant to be existing public streets in the To;vn of Southold Highway system, anm. x 5chcdnle "C" hereto to show same. 18. There are no existing' buildings or st 'uctu~ cs on the land wlaicb are uot located and shown on the plat. 19. Where the plat shows proposed streets ~; hich are extensions of streets on adjoining sub- di¥ision maps heretofore filed, there a~c no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their coujtmctions with tl~e proposed streets. 20. In the course of these proceedings, II~. alq~llcan~ will offer proof of title as required by Sec. 335 of the Real Property Law. 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed for lots sh~)wint~ all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". 22. The applicant estimates that the cost (~[ gra(li.~ and reqnired public improvements will be $.2..0,.0.qQ.. as itemized in Schedule "1£' hereto am~exed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at . .9~1~. ...... )'ears. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". 9/11 ~ DATE ~o 91 Clifford 0. General Partner 391 Great River RD. Great River N.Y. 11730 (Address) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ................................ ss: On the ~/ ~'~dy o ft. l ~/~~d~ ,19 ~/, before me personally came ........................... ~ ............ ~' ' the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow~he same. ; NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yot~ No. 30-4519646 Qualified is1 Na~ ~O0~ty ~ STATE OF NEW YORK, COU~TTy OF ......................... ss :Commission ~pires~J~ On the ................ day ............ <>f ........ , 19 ...... , before me personally came ................... t~, me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that ............ resides at No. .............................. that ......................... is the .......... .................. of the corporation described in and which e×ecuted tim foregoing' instrument; that ............ knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal :fffixvd I)y or,let of the board of directors of said corporation. nnd that ............ signed .............. name thereto bylike order. Notary Public MOHTGAGE NOTE ~2,000,000.00 Oreenpor t, N~ Y~rk. ~._ ~ ~ · ] 1085 6reenport, NY; JA14E!:; SAGE, residing at 519 Sterlin9 Place, Two Million ($~,000,000.00) ......... Do~ in twenty (20? semi- annual principal payments of $100,000.00 On the~ ~vm~_~nnua~ly ~hereafter upon th~.~ame dates tcrminate~t oral]).. President TOTAL P. ~d 1 ~1-16-2 (2/87)-- 7c 617.21 i S _ State Environmental Qua ty Review ~', FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN1 ~RM - q t on or whether an action ma .... ' . er proje ly, there are aspects ora pro eot that are sub ective or ...... y ~ 5,~m.f,c~ ~..~a~~:r. ~r~quer ...... ~-~ureame ~t ~s a~so understood th~t'~ho determb significance may have little or no formal Enow edge of the environment or may be technically expert ~n environment analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecti~ the question of significance' The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determinatic process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a pro~ect or actio Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic proje~ data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project oraction. It provid( guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentiMb large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not th impact is actually important. DETERM. INATION OF SIGNIFICANCE_Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: O Part I [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting informat on, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it ~s reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [ A The project will not result in any large and important impactls) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, th_erefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared." [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different trom responsible officer) Date OPAFIT 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist n determining whether the acti~.~Q.~sed may have a significant on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A throuRh E Aris [[~,]o thr. s~. questions will be Cons,, as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verfficatio public review. Provide any~add~ new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional, 0rk each instance. ~NNI~ 80A~ ., ~.. NAME OF A~TION Harborview Landing-Sage Redevelopment and Proposed Parkland LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipalitvand County) Sa.qe Road, Town of Southold, Suffold CounTy NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Harborview Realty Co. ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE ~516i 724-2500 .750 Veterans Hi§hway CITY/PO Haooauqe STATE I ZIP CODE NAME OF OWNER (if different) NY 11788 Harborview Realty Co. BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS ( ) 750 Veterans Highway CITYIPO _ Hapuauqe STATE ,ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION NY 11788 Subdi, visi, on of a portion ~25,87) of 83.117 acres to provide for single family development of 10 homes. The. remaining 57.247 acres (69%) would remain undeveloped be dedicated to the Nature Conservancy or an organization which would keep the land an in trust and forever wi'ld. Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ~Urban f"llndustrial []]Commercial []Residential [suburban) []Rural (non-f ~]Forest ~Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 83. 117 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland [Non-agricultural) 21.~RESENTLY acres Forested 77 . acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasturb, etc ) 0 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 25 of ECl.) 12.8 acrf~s Water Surface Area 4 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0 Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 6 acres ~OtherW_e.%lands & 31 exist, substandard residen acres, including 11. 551 acres underwater, cottag~ AFTER COMPLETIO _ >'0.8 acrl _ 27 act,: 0 --~--~2.8 acr~ 0 8 Other (Indicate type). 11.6 acres 11. ~ acre acre 3.. What is predominant soit type(s) on project site?~ZJ.O~,lHaveO _].oam ~.2~, .Sjyerhoad Sand 10an' a. Soil drainage: ~WeJl drained. 38 . ~ e 1'HC~ai~e¢[l~ - % ot site ~Poody drained _ _ % o~ b. Ii any agricultural land is involved, how many acres o~ soil are classified Land Classification System~ 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 4. ~te there bedrock outcroppings on project site~ ~Yes ~No a. Wha[ is depth to bedrock~ . ~/~ (in feet) 2 5.' Approximate percentage of propos rD oct site w th slopes: ~0-10% 100 % []lO-1 [~15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Natio~ Registers of Historic P aces? E]Yes ~No (~" IS project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [~]Yes 8. What is the depth of the water table? _8.~ avq (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, princ pal, or sole source aquifer? [~Yes [~No 10. Do hunt ng, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the proiect area~ BYes ~]No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or anwnal lii~e t,bat is. identified, =~s,~hreatened or endangere~ [X1Yes ~No According to 1973 Endangered bpec~es Act (Fee) IX~WXX~-)~)~X)~X~v~x~ JNY~ ~nvi~nnm~ntal Conservation-Law, Section 11-0535 (State) 12. Are there any uni ue or unus~l~r~h wk_~ ~lgq6~t tern, p.ip.i~g ployer ospre (see a~acnea app~ q andh~a°~r .......... - prolec[ s,te.: 0.e., cliffs, d~unes, ot~Yer geological formation ~Yes []]No Describe 1.566-acre island to continue as common beach with deed · ' 1 uses and conservation ROW. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area ~lYes EqNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the COmmu t;,~ lYes ~]No 15. Streams within or COntiguous to project area: Id~tland Pond Tr'ib~tary_to Southo]d Bay 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to proiect area: a. Name Ha~hamq[El, t~k Pond 17. Is the site served by existing public utihties? ]J~Yes E~No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connect on? OYes b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection? E]Yes ~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 2S-AA Section 303 and 304t ~Yes [~]No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area des~nated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [~]Yes ~No ' 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? [~Yes ~No b. Size (In acres) 172 ac. approx. ~-fthin ½mi le ~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of proiect (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguot~s acreage owned or controlled b~ project sponsor ~ acres. b. Project acreage to rb;m~nVe~on~;~ ~d~ ]27 ;cres initially; 2__~.00 acres uitimately~ c. Project acreage to clop ~ acres(74g)-Mnus 3~'87 acres undevel0ped m0orin, d. Length of project, in miles: 0.85 _ (if appropri,lto) area. e. If the project is an expans on. indicate percent of expansir)n pro[los~!dN/A,,, f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ~ -; proposed 20 g. Maximum vehicular trips I:enerated per hour ~j~__ h. If residential Number and type of housing umts: One Family Two [amdV Ultimately ]0 ~ ~ i. Dimens.ons [in feetJ of largest proposed structure ~t.3' _ height; 52t width; 125' length. J. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare prolect win occupy is? as 'i~ ~X~.X Access 1;0 Routg 2~ * Plus 3.87 acre undevel0ped morring arced. (Main Road) as existing Sage R 2. HOW much natural material . ,e..~rock earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic ?a~ 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? [Yes I~No ~]N/A a. If yes, for what intendeC purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamat on? E3Yes E3No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [Yes [No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 12.2 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? [~Yes ~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~_~8 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated ..~1/~ _ (number). I~. Anticipated date of COmmencement phase 1 month year, (including demolitio~ c. Approximate completion date of final phase month __ year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? E3Yes [No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? E]Yes f~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction_ '[~ ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 1 11. Will proiect require relocation of any projects or facilities? ~]Yes ~-INo If yes, explain · '- ic ser ice relocate rivate road on development porti( 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? []Yes [~No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount _ b. Name of water beady into which effluent will be discharged __ 13. is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes [No Type Sew~qe · 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? []Yes Explain I~No 15. Is project or any portion ol~ project located in a 100 year flood pla n? [~Yes [No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~]Yes E3No a. If yes, what is the amount: per month __ 2.52 tC~ns b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~Yes c. If yes, give name ~PriYate sanitation carters ; location Town of South01d Landfil d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill~ e. If Yes, explain [Yes [~No 17. Will the project involve the ciisposal of solid waste?' [Yes [~No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? _ ~l/~ tons/month. b. If yes. what is the anticipated site ifc;~ ~years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? []Yes ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? E3Yes [~No 20. Will prolect produce operating noise exceeding the local ?mbient noise levels?~Yes 21, Will prolect result in an increase in energy use? ~Yes ~]No If yes, indicate type(s)_ Domestilc electric service (minimal) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity___[~/A~ gailons/minute 2.3. Total anticipated water usage per day 24. ·Does project involve Local, State or Federal fund If Yes, explain ]~]No gallons/day. (equal to current use) ~Yes ~]]No '2.5. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board EYes I%lNo City, Town. Village Planninn Board ~Yr~ F1No City, Town Zoning Board ~Yes ENo City, County Health Department OYes ENo Other Local Agencies ~Yes []]No Other Regional Agencies []]Yes ~No State Agencies ~Yes ENo Federal Agencies []]Yes ~No ~own_ Trustees X Yes · Zomng and Planning Information Submitt Type Date S u b d i vi s_i_o~S_i~t e~p_l a n' approval Subdivision/Site plan approval Sewage and water Greenport Water District Wetlands Permit Wet]ands 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~]Yes []]No If Yes, indicate decision required: []]zoning amendment []]zoning variance ~special use permit []]subdivision Esite plan Enew/revision of master plan []resource management plan Eother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Residential-80 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 31 units existin9 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? ~/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use pans? ~Yes C 7. What are the predominant land use(s} and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed action? Resident land use is primarily sin.gle.family residential on average 10t size of 10,000 s ina use. 8i~rl~ ~3e~(~°rpC°is~e~ ~r~orn cIc~npat,~Sle with adioining/surrounding land uses within a ~,,~ mile? ~}Yes [] 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? Pr~erved-2secl;i0ns 57.2 . . acre a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?2~:R7 a~"eS for 10 unit single family oevel0pmon 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) ~,t~4fo~tigl~-of sewer or water districts? ~Yes ~]N 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for anv community provided services retreat on education, poli fire protection)? [~Yes []]No a. If yes, is existing, capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes []]No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? EYes ~, a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? EYes []]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may he needed to clarify your project If there are or may be any adve~ avoid them E. Verification e aC. hon ,s ,n ~/he Coastal Area. and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proc;edit 5 617.21 Appendix B Slate Environmental Quality Review Visual CAF Addendum" SEQR This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question ! I of Part 2 of the Full CAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Visibility 1. Would the project be visible from: · A parcel of land which is dedicated to ami available to the public for the use, enjoyment and ;q)p~eciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? · An overlook or parcel of [and dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciatior~ of natural or man-made scenic qualities? · A site or structure listed on the I~ationa~ or State Registers of Historic Places? · State Parks.') · The State Forest Preserve? · National Wildlife Refuges and state game r~ uges~ · National [Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features? · National Park Ser(,ice lands? · Rivers designated as National or State \¥ Ici Scenic or Recreational? · Any transportation ~orridor of hi§h uxpo~ure, such as part olF the Interstate System, or Amtrak? · A goyernmentaUy established or designated interstate or inter-county foot trail, or one formally p[oposed for establishment or designation? · A site, area. lake. reservoir or highway designated as scenic? · b'lunicipal park, or designated oper~ %0, ,, ~ · (~ounty road? · State:) · Local road? Distance Between Project and Resource (in Miles) .OJ/,~ ',~ - V~ V~.3 3.5 5+ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 0 [] 2. Is the visibility of d~e project seasonal? (i e,i :;< r~cn'ed by SUmmer foliage, but visible during other seasons) F'q Yes ~]No 3. Are any of the resources checked in queslion ] used by the publlc during the time of year during which the p,roject will be visible? F~Yes [~No DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in questkm I check those which generally describe the surro environment, ' Essentially undeveloped Forested Agricultural Suburban residential Industrial Commercial Urban River. Lake, Pond Cliffs, Overlooks Designated Open Space Flat Hilly Mountainous Other (Harbor') NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects *V2 mile E~Yes *1 miles [~Yes '2 miles [~Yes '3 miles '~Yes Within mile '1 mile Travel to and from work Involved in recreational activities Routine travel by residents At a residence At worksite Other · Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate EXPOSURE 6. The annual number 6f viewers likely to observe the proposed project is 100 NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in whicl~ d~, ',~,:'.ve~s are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Activity Holidays/ Daily Weekly Weekends SeaSonally I1'1 · John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Reports Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Design Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Planning July 6, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 T · LY ~":~ PLANNING BOARD Re: Harbor View Landing Dear Holly, Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I am enclosing herewith copies of correspondence pertaining ~to Harbor View Landing. As I told you over the telephone, we inadvertantly deposited the stub of the check your office issued and threw away the actual check for $250. (See enclosed.) I would appreciate it if you would reissue a check to us in the amount of $250. Thank you for your help in this matter. Should you have any questions or need anything further, please call me. Very truly yours, Enclosures JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. CO.RECZ~ON OF DEPOSn D¥3~,Cz i J ~"'~ ~rror is hereby corrected in yqur deposi, dated ~/~/~ ~ S ~ ~o~,~_ //~ ~,/~ ~O~T~.~ ~/~'~ Error in Addition ~ Che~ included but nor listed - ' , ~'- / - -/ C~ . ~ ~-',/---/-~) Error ~n Subtra~ion ~¢k listed but not included ~-~ ~}[ ~ ~ ~~ ~rror iff Votid~ian (Description, if any, 0n deD~it ticket) [] Check for $ Usted as $ By .... · uP-. ,-,1~--*. , ¢ ,.*...H....J, RAYNOR CHECK .802.0.9- 0001 ~ i HARBOR VIEW LAND:lNG TOTAL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD "' SOUTHOLD, NY 11971-0959 Purchase Order Date ~ - OTOWN OF SOUTHOIL~ Tax Exempt # A163554 Account # (~ ~O~.q IDeliver and send bitling to: D ePa r t men t,_.2~.~,.~, Address I I I I VENDOR **Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment** ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPT. HEAD AND THE SUPERVISOR Dept. Head I, CERTIFY THIS~.T_O~E A JUST AND TRUE~"I~O RDE R SuPervlsor ~ VENDOR COPY ¢count NumBer ......... Invoice -- ......... [DaTe .......... ~9 .......... TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N.Y., Dr. PAY TO: Payee Name s: Payee Identification or Social Security Number: · :V,. :. ....................... Payee Reference: Phone No. (~.t-.6.). ~5. ~. ~¢~{}P ............ Vendor Contact Cash Oiscount .................. % ......... Days .................................... Item Description of Material/Service Quantity I Unit Amount No.ii Price I $250.00 ~ Professional En,~ineerin~/Surveying Services I Total $250.00 Discount Net The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of above named claimant) does hereuy certify that the 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. May .2.2~ .................. 19 .~ ............ John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerftetd C~een P.O. Box 720 Mo~aul( H~hway Wate~ Mill. New Y~: 11976 Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Pl~ning July 6, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Hol{y, Re: Harbor View Landing As I told you over thc= telephone, we inadvertarrtly deposited the stub of the check your office issued and threw eway the actual check for $250. (See enclosed.) I would appreciate it if you would reissue a check to us in the amount of $250. Thank you for your help in this mattsr. Should you have any questions or need anythir~j fu~lher, please call me. Very truly yours, Enclosures JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Suzan e~o. Anttloty~ Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I am enclosing herewith copies of correspondence per{alnlng to Harbor View Landing. Iii° · !John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deedield Green P.O. Box 720 Reports Montauk Highway Water Mill, New Yo~ 11976 Design Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Planning April 27, 1992 Mr. Bennett Odowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Scoping Outline - Harbor View Landing Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed please find the Scoping Outline which comes from the scoping session held April 15, 1992. In preparing this outline, we relied on the outline prepared by the NYSDEC (which was reviewed, item by item, at the at the session) and pages of notes taken at the meeting. It is clear that many issues need clarification. The improvement of Sage Boulevard, the actual road specifications, the dedication of the road, future use of the proposed open space areas, boat slips, drainage, setbacks, effect on wetlands and neighboring propedies and special attention to Conklin Point are just a few of the issues raised. On the other hand, discussion about noise, air resources, new technologies and agricultural features and pursuits were deemed unnecessary. The contents of the Draft ElS are cleady spelled out in the accompanying checklist. I trust this format of presentation is acceptable. Points of concern are listed in bold type throughout the outline. As I understand it, the PIanning Dept. staff will review the enclosed outline and distribute same to the concerned parties. Should you have any questions or require anything further, please contact the undersigned. encl. Very truly yours, JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. February 19, 1992 Page 2 4) 6) Page 5 of the report states that two commercial fishing vessels used this site prior to purchase by the current owner. Did these displaced vessels relocate to another location? Will this loss of commercial fish£ng activity be compensated? Will provisions be made to provide continued space at this site for commercial fishing activities? What impacts will the proposed dock modification and use have on State water quality classifications and existinq shellfish beds at and near the site? Will all non-point runoff be contained on-site? More detailed plans should be prepared showing how this concern w~ll be addressed. Several of the 10 properties shown on sketch plan "A" have bui!dinq envelopes that are apparently large enough to allow further setback of the proposed residences from $outhold Bay. To minimize any e~fec~s on the visual quality of the shoreline and water quality in $~uthold Bay, these residences should be located as far from the waterIront as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call ~.~ike Corey at (518) 474-6000 if there are any questions. Sincerely, . .W~lliam F. B~rton Chief, Project Review Sureau Division of' Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization WFB/rdc cc: DOS - Mike Corey Peter Walsh Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Town of Sodthold Planning Boaro Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 12231-0001 February 19, 1992 S-92-010 Lead Agency Status for SEQ~A Coordination - Harbor View Landing Subdivision Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letters of January 21, 1992 regarding your request for comments on the designation of the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency under SEQRA for the above-referenced proposals. The Department of State has no objections to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency responsibility for this project. We do, however, have some comments and questions on several items pertaining to the proposed subdivision: l) 2) The easternmost finger of land (approximately 1.5 acres) is proposed as Homeowner's Association "open space" according to Part "A" of the sketch plan. This finger of land is located within the boundaries of the designated Conkling Point significant coastal fish and w£tdlife habitat. Intensive use of this open space should be discouraged in order to minimize impacts to nesting activities of colonial water birds in the area, particularly lea~t terns and piping plovers. Due to the likelihood that ex~sting dock structures will be modified through replacement, repair or reconfiguration, a Corps of Engineers approval for this'in-water work may be necessary. The listing of permitting agencies on page 2 of the report should be revised to reflect this authorization. 3) How will public access along the shoreline of the property be affected by th£s proposed project? The OWnership of underwater lands at this site should be established. An opportunity to enhance or develop ~blic access may be possible via this proposal. This opportunity should be addressed. 4. The Trustees feel that the mooring plans for thc northerly most basin, "Sage Basin" should be detailed or eliminated. Elimination of any mooring here would eliminate another potential SEQRA threshold as the Board believes the Southerly basin is large enough to accommodate the boating needs of this s~bdivision. The Southerly most basin should be laid out to show that it in fact will accommodate a vessel for each lot, if that is what is sought. 5. As this project relies on development closer to the Phragmitic pond on lots 3 and 4 than discussed on pre-submission, this pond should be fully characterized as to depth, soils, Flora, Fauna and water quality. Is this pond vernal? Does it support biological activity which would be impacted by development? Does any impact to the pond relate to the significant Coastal fish and wildlife area? With respect to this issue the Board has authorized its consultant Bruce Anderson to review these issues with a charge back to the developer at the prevailing SEQRA rate should the developer elect. In any case, we would request any report on this be made for our review prior to a SEQRA determination in this matter. 6. The Trustees believe that this is ~an environmentally responsible project and would suggest that the developer commence linkages with the Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust, Ducks Unlimited or similar conservation entity to help steward the land preservation aspects of this proposal and'allay the fears of the N.F.E.C. and others. We do however believe that the concerns of John Raynor and this Board should be fully addressed, so as to develop a legal basis for any SEQRA determination. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchi¢ Latharn. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main R P.O. Box 1179 S,,~uthold. New York 119 Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance March 16, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the · implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SEQR Status: Typel Description of Action Residential clustered subdivision. 10 single family lots on 83.117 acres. Lot sizes range from 55,334 to 106,510 square feet in area. Homeowners Association will own some of the remaining land. The rest of the land is proposed for dedication to the Town, Nature Conservancy or similar organization. Location: ." Southeast of Main Road Greenport, Town of Southold SCTM~ 1000-53-5-1~.5 Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-80 Route 25 at Love Lal~e. PO Hox 799, Mattituck. NY 11952 Ms. Melissa Spiro Southold Planning Department Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Harborview Landing Sage Blvd., February Subdivisien --~ Greenport Dear Melissa, I am writing to you today to ask that the above mentioned project, which is a Type I action, be given a Positive Declaration under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Quite frankly, I don't see how it is possible for you to do otherwise. A conditioned negative declaration cannot, be used because.this is a Type I action and to issue a negative declaration would be wrong when so many areas of environmental concern associated with the project have been identified. Some of the areas that we are most concerned about are the rare and endangered species that utilize the site. Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State. Additionally, we are concerned about Sage Boulevard. wet~%d~hO~r~a[ou~%t[~dt~ through .the significant freshwater ne northerly section of the site. It is proposed that the road be dedicated to the Town of Southold. In order for this to happen the entire roadway, all 3,760 feet, must meet town highway specifications which would mean ,,~ tripling its current width and adding a drainage system. This means that some wetlands will be filled in. While we feel that it may be desirable to improve Sage Blvd., we also feel that we should know upfront how many acres of wetlands will be involved and how the drainage system will be built. We feel that improving the road should be the responsibility of the applicant and not become a burden to the taxpayers at a later date. The third are~ of concern extends to th~ proposal to Use Sage Basin for boat mooring. The future homeowner s will have aCcess to the Water for recreation, docking and mooring from Area D which is a 1.29 acre site that includes an already disturbed bulkheaded area. The need to also use Sage Cove should be carefully examined and perhaps eliminated from the Plan. Hew Yor,~ St~-te Department of En¥1r~ment.~l Cor~ervation Building 40--~UNY, Stony arook, New York 11790-2356 Bennett Orlowskl, ,Ir., Chairman PlanD%nq Board Office Town Hall, 53Dq% Main Poad ~outh~ld. NY %3q7] Thomaa C. Jorlln~ Commtasloner sub~_ect: Te~hni~l 1'~vi~w, DEC application 4730-0047%, Harbor View Deaf a~ they r~ia~e ~o ~he submittmd Laing A;~so¢:. ElS. ,l,,rl~le~im~ Regardl~$~ of ~he hulkhe5d on thJs property, the Department w~].l have ]uvis~tct%o~ over lots ld~ntif!ed am ], 2, and ~ nn th~ Frel]doiph Corp. pla~l. For these three Ions, at ]east, alt The bu]kbead that ~×jstm on th~ sm~thern border of the proposed ['e.>]d~utia] araa w~s In existence prier tm the effective, date of tl~ Tidal W~t]a~]ds Land Hse R.~gulations, However the State's pu~-lgdlcr3~n et! lots dirmc~ly north of ~hat bHlkbead, l~)ts 4-10, over lots 4-10. '/eq,~tariv~ n~)~fer~: (P~ge 7) Once tidal wetland buffers Depzrrz~e,~t will ro~t%'l(-~ physi,'al ~L~n~ptl]at!c~l ~f those areas: rh~,-~ sb~] ] b~ no di,~tHrka:~c~ to the vegetat!~n or topc, graphy wltlliu the ~sr~hl lsh~d buffe~-s, Th~ n~d for' th&s8 t~es of ~h.;tt " eVOSiOI] ~Ol~tl'O] JS nece:~sary ~ ~ai~taTn beech width pr,-~te,-r n~avl%y upl,~nd~:". NatttF~l undisturbed buffers provide ~';';s%cH] pl~;~t.~CT:I~I% whe]'e~$ mr;wiqg, p):u~ing and ~'~her dl~:turbance James Monsell, Robert DeLuca, Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.c. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Van de Kieft, John J. Raynor, P.E. Superintendent, Greenport Utilities Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services & L.S., New Y=rk Stata Dop=rtm~nt of Environmental Conserver!on .~~-~ Buildtn~; 40--SUN¥, Stony E~rook, Naw Y,~tk 11790-=:~58 Thom,,s C. Jc, rllng Commie~ioner fertilizer during agr[ctiltural opera,Ion within Zone IV (palm 10). r=a~ nne. The ElS Sta~es ~hat gr~indwateF underlying the applied o~tty during grow~n~ mnnth~. If ~esr.~ng were conducted d!spers~d, d~luted or organically bracken down, ~hen thst re,ting r~qul':*e ~hat the applicant ~]o~ use l~wn gvas~, tree~, bushe~ or other 161~d~c~pinq s~ecl~s within 100' of r. ldal wetlands that require any ~upp]~mental appll~n~('>n of fe~'tllizer or pestl~ide~. The D~partmei]~ w%l! prohfb~x their nse w~thin ths~ 100' zon~ How will the runoff co~pon~ on the war~F bt)dg~t change clearing of rh~ lots or change in v~ge~ative sp~cj.~s (water ltptakm/ l-er.~ntiotl) . How will rh~ Jn~r~ase.~ ~n ru~loff affect water shellfish~rip8? Are theae ~l~cr~ase significant? HoW will they mitigated? (~ page !1) S~wac~ Di~oos.~l: 8ecausm ~f th~ preva]~c~ of sal~ water intrHs~on !~ wells ach the relative hetghr of the grnund water tab] saltwater lnt~yfmc~ (hydr~]oglc ~onn~t. ion), th~ Depavtment will h~gh ~de occurs. This w%!l enFure that s~,aso~.ich is b~ing m~asured. The D~parrm~nt wll] r~quire that ~ys~em~, ta~ks s~]d. !eachl~g p~]~, 3]~lsh be locat&d two feet above ~=a~onal hiub qrounr]water, Th~.s shm~l d provide an adpquate pollHtl(~n buffer so that sewage ~achat~ does not enter marine waters. Qei]..~.~l Common, ts: 0,~ page 34, th~ EI.~ %dent~fies abandoned care~ opener%g, The Department w~ll r~qulre that thos~ cars, and any other material consid~'red to h~ ~olJd waste, be removed. The Department w%l] b~ happy t,~ r~v~+w m proposal t~ stabilize that J~let [~ m~me o~h~r apprc~vahle fashion. The p,~,rt, ion of the l(~t Jd~ntifi~d ion th~ Frendolph corp. plal! as "Hotnec, wn~r~ ' Asso~iatio,n Parce] H - trainmen area for r~creatlon" ;~ui~clill~ 4O--SUNY, Stony ~r=ok, New 'York 117~0-2356 Thomas C. Jorllng Commissioner should have its p!a~e-~ use ~ha~%ged. This area %~ characterized p:p!~]g plover a~cl the New York Kt~te ~ndangered lemur, t~rn have bn~h bee~ ob.~rved in recent 30), and b~cat%s~ this ~pit area provldsg ~deal nestlng habitat for borders of conk!in p~l~t ~ho,t]¢ he ]eft alone. C.O ~.~ 1 ~n P~i~ _~h o',[ 1 d be d e~(ted ~o ~he Town ,~,~ the Nature CoKs~-vanny fnr p~'~servar~o~ ~ perpe~ t1~y, w~th 1~ ~r~ - .~hot{24 yc:u h~ve ~ny qu~t.]on$ op. my impu? p]e~e feel N~w'York ~tcte P. ep~ n~ ~t ~nvimnrnantal ~uilding 40--$UNY, ~teny tSrook, New ¥o;k 117,00-2338 Fro~: K~'v'in R. D~i Bo'[..~...i~-J-/---~'- /) · .qnbJe~t: Harhnr ',;iew realty: 4730-00470 March 10, 1992 Thom-a C. Jorllng .-----.-~ '7;'-C o m mir~ $oner ,, , review of the prn~e~t Folnr.$ oltt- these Ir. ems which we r~ rhi~ rlghr? Our ,~opy 1ne as 12.3 (86.5 If ,~h9 applicant i~ r~que.~elng an N.7 on aEy ~f th~ p]ea.~e h~ve them id~DtJ, fz~-l, and have ~.b~ appl]nanr supply of r. bat NJ, tke Dep~l'~m~n~ w~]l request Jnforma~nn applicable ~ all d~velopD~nK r~r. ri~tion, pr!or to illspect~n. (This is prJ~narl!y betas. Isa the applicant has not sHpplled photo~raph~ of the bulkhead, does not ~dellt~.fy It o~l the ~urv~y, ~nd B~r'~;u~ ~taff cannot determine cuFr~nt Have the applicant m~ppl, y ~uv!'e!!t photogr,~phq of the th~ docks al'~ to be l'em~v~t (~b.~wn as wetland e~l th.~ PI'ease havo the appllc~nt ameI~cl th~ .mlrvey to show the proposed lo,at'Ion of th~ ~n~rary systems f~F all lnts. Of 4, 0nd %. will the appl~c.~t be able to s~hisfy th~: Tidal Wet]ands led~ g~tback wh~]~, sat~sfy~.ng t]l~ w~tlend setback? If Dot, hav~ the Please have th~ appli*ant ;:uhmit a ~t,%k~ng pl,sn; m~t'k~ng tho sanitary ring or st. ruc'.t.,IF~. For th~se lots ~]lar have Now Y~rL' $1~to D-~pa~',m~nt o~ ~ ' Thomee C. Jorilng Comml~lone~' th*~ prnpos~d access t~ rh~ p?~,pose~ p!er./flo~ts. ~orb rh~ plan and ~ ~hcu!d show exJ. sti:ig w~rland~. The surrounded by rids) w~t]an~s, 1,e. araess to th~ dmaks 1~ area, a~d that the .~a=~ ~rructure shall b~ a ~l.l]lm~ of q.5' over ~rad, ~vm~. tidal w~t!a~ds. platform do~$: as show on rh~ ar~a~h~d plan, The applicai]% · ay pFopnse acces~ the pFopo~ed rl MS. Melissa Spiro Southold Planning Department Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: 21 , · '""~'~ Harborview Landing Subdivision '~ml;~o~p9 i Sage Blvd., Greenport Dear Melissa, I am writing to you today to ask that the above mentioned project, which is a Type I action, be given a Positive Declaration under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Quite frankly, I don't see how it is possible for you to do otherwise. A conditioned negative declaration cannot be used because.this is a Type I action and to issue a negative declaration would be wrong when so many areas of environmental concern associated with the pro3ect have been identified. Some of the areas that we are most concerned about are the rare and endangered species that utilize the site. Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State. Additionally, we are concerned about Sage Boulevard. The right-of-way extends through the significant freshwater wetlands which are found in the northerly section of the site. It is proposed that the road be dedicated to the Town of Southold. In order for this to happen the entire roadway, all 3,760 feet, must meet town highway specifications which would mean tripling its current width and adding a drainage system. This means that some wetlands will be filled in. While we feel that it may be desirable to improve Sage Blvd., we also feel that we should know upfront how many acres of wetlands will be involved and how the drainage system will be built. We feel that improving the road should be the responsibility of the applicant and not become a burden to the taxpayers at a later date. The third area of concern extends to the proposal to Use Sage Basin for boat mooring. The future homeowner's will have access to the Water for recreation, docking and mooring from Area D which is a 1.29 acre site that includes an already disturbed bulkheaded area. The need to also use Sage Cove should be carefully examined and perhaps eliminated from the Plan. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McD,.mald Kcnneth L Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York II971 Fax (516) 765-1823 May 15, 1992 Michael P. Bontje B. Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Southold, New York Dear Mr. Bontje: The purpose of this letter is to summarize the discussion that took place during the April 15, 1992 scoping session. The narrative in this letter refers to the State's standard scoping checklist which was used at the scoping session. The Roman numerals refer to the subsections of the standard scoping outline. This letter supplements and clarifies the environmental consultant's annotations to the scoping outline, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. One last note. Some of the information presented in this letter was discussed in a different order at the scoping session. However, for the purposes of synopsis; and of clarity, I have consolidated comments that may have been made throughout the meeting into one place. Ail the information noted in Subsections I. and II. shall be included in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Ail the information noted in Subsection III, shall be included in the DEIS. Inclusion of a scaled map showing the property boundaries and the extent of the underwater lands would be helpful. Please include legal documentation pertaining to Sage Boulevard, including information on other parties' right of access. The DEIS should also make clear that although the right-of-way is 50' in width, the actual width of the pavement will be considerably less. The proposed width of the road; the type of road construction; and the type of drainage shall be set forth clearly, particularly if an alternative type of road is being proposed, or if Sage Boulevard is proposed to be built to two different specifications depending on location. This information is being requested because the developer will have to obtain wetland permits for the road construction from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town's Board of Trustees, both of whom are coordinating agencies on this environmental review. Subsection III. C. 1. should provide clear details about the actual proposed width of the road throughout its length, and the projected increase of impervious surface over the existing road. Further, the amount of impervious area that will be created by the new homes, driveways and any other proposed improvements should be identified. The amount of open space should be presented as a total sum, with a breakdown showing which portions are wetlands versus uplands. Subsection III. C. 2. does not need to address the gross leaseable area (unless a business use of the open space and marina is being proposed). However, attention should be paid to the New York State Department of State's position (comment #6) about the need to re-examine the proposed siting of the residences. Subsection III. D. should be addressed as relevant. Subsection III. E. is not considered appropriate to this project at this time. Subsection III. F. should indicate all other required permits that may be needed from other agencies, within the Town , the County and the State. The requirements of these permitting agencies should be set forth also. The State Department of Environmental Conservation has requested additional information about the history of the bulkheading along the shoreline. All the questions set forth in that office's April 13, 1992 letter, a copy of which is attached, shall be answered in the DEIS. Although this was not mentioned during the scoping session, an examination of the history of this site going back to its previous use as a brickyard may be useful in explaining the geology and topography of the site, as well as the function of the existing bulkheading. Subsection IV deals with the Environmental Setting. Ail information noted on the Scoping Checklist and the outline should be included in the DEIS. Subsection IV. A. 2. should include a description of the location and amount of made land or fill that exists on the site. It will not be necessary to do an in-depth review of the suitablity of the site for those uses that are patently unsuitable, such as agriculture and conventional mining. -3- (The suitablity of the site for residential needs, e.g. waste disposal, should be examined in conjunction with the next subsection on Water Resources.) Subsection IV. B. 1. should include the following information: the existing location and capacity of the public water supply main that services this site; an analysis of the capacity of the public supply to meet the projected residential demand, including fire protection and swimming pools. - the proposed location of underground water lines to Lots #3 and 4 where the homes would be located between the wetlands and the shore. - soil test borings taken during days of seasonal high water table; - the capacity of the soils to handle the projected sewage. - a description of what measures would be needed to handle the anticipated sewage if the soils are not suitable for cesspools. - a discussion of how the impact of sewage leachate on wetlands and the bay will be prevented or mitigated. - a map showing the proposed location of all septic systems relative to all fresh and tidal wetlands and waters. The buffer setbacks required by the State and the Town should also be shown. Subsection IV. B. 2. also should explain that existing drainage along the road may consist of direct discharge into adjoining wetlands - that is that there are no man-made drainage facilities. F~lrther, the effect of the removal or reconstruction of the existing roadway on the existing drainage pattern should be addressed with particular regard for the potential impacts on the wetlands adjoining the roadbed. The potential impact of each proposed road width (whether it be 24', 20' or some other width that may be proposed) must be explored. This section of the DEIS would address such issues as the potential volume of runoff to wetlands and the bay from other impervious surfaces on each lot; and the amount of wetland area that might have to be filled in order to improve the road; the change the road improvement might cause in the volume and nature of stormwater runoff that currently drains into the wetlands; the potential impacts that the development and use of Lots 3 and 4 may have on the adjoining wetlands; and whether the road improvements could be mitigated. In short, this subsection of the DEIS should address all the questions and concerns set forth by the Department of State, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town Trustees with regard to the potential impacts of the proposal on the wetlands and the bay. These concerns are adequately expressed by these agencies in their respective letters to this Board. Accordingly they are attached to this for purposes of reference. Subsection IV. C. pertaining to Air Resources was deemed not to be needed at this time given the nature of the proposal. Subsection IV. D. should include all information noted on the scoping checklist. The special designation of Conklin Point's wildlife habitat by the State should be duly noted, along with an explanation of the restrictions which that designation places on the recreational use of the Point. Reference was made to the specific concerns about any use of this site that might affect the threatened and endangered species that nest there (see comments from NYSDEC, NYSDOS, North Fork Environmental Council, Frank Flynn, Southold Town Trustees). Further, the DEC requested that the removal of the abandoned cars from Conklin Point be addressed in the DEIS. In response to your assertion that removal is not feasible, we ask that there be an explanation why removal is not feasible and a presentation of an alternative that may be satisfactory to the DEC. Because of the large amount of area that is being designated as "open space" and the fact that some of these areas are not contiguous to one another, it is suggested that each area be clearly defined and discussed in depth before moving on to a discussion of the next area. For example, review Conklin Point in depth; then move on to the smallest cove, then the larger cove, etc. In the part of the DEIS where the proposed uses of the open space are presented, the same format suggested above should be used. The proposed uses for each open space area shall be clearly set forth and defined. For example, if an open space area is to be restricted to use as a preserve, this should be distinguished from those areas where active or passive recreational activities will be encouraged. Subsection IV. E. was deemed not needed because of the lack of any agriculturally suitable soils on the site. Subsection IV. A. of the Human Resources portion of the scoping outline deals with Transportation. All information requested in this outline should be provided. In addition, the DEIS should address the proposed location of vehicular and pedestrian access to the open space and the boatslips or mooring area. The request to add one more slip over the 10 needed (one per lot) should be explained. Who will have right of access to the eleventh slip? Who will own it? What is the rationale for adding this slip? -5- The DEIS should indicate clearly whether there will be both moorings and slips; or just one or the other. The existing situation should be described as well as the projected use. If the placement of moorings in the larger cove is being proposed; the potential for adding more than the initial 10 moorings must be addressed. The discussion of the small "marina" for the homeowner's should include reference to any aspects that may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ultimate projected use of Sage Boulevard in response to the proposed recreational boating amenities must be set forth. The Subsection on public transportation was not felt to be a significant issue at this time. The Subsection on the pedestrian environment (IV. A. 3.) should include the possibility of providing non-intrusive pedestrian walkways or overlooks in particularly sensitive open space areas, such as Conklin Point. And Subsection A. 4. should include a discussion of options other than private ownership of the open space such as the offer of dedication to a government agency. In this section, there should be a clear indication of what will happen to that portion of the open space that includes privately owned underwater land. Subsection IV. B. should include all information noted on the scoping checklist along with clarification about the potential for development on adjoining properties. Bayview Heights and August Acres are two subdivisions that lie to the east of the subject property. August Acres has been approved (the roads have been constructed) and the other is in the preliminary review stage. For Subsection IV. C., the analysis of the projected level of service and population should assume that there will be eventual year-round occupancy of the homes; not just seasonal occupancy. The information noted on the scoping checklist for Subsection IV. D., Demography, shall be included in the DEIS. The information noted on the checklist for Subsection IV. E., Cultural Resources, shall be included in the DEIS. Since the site provides a visual amenity to surrounding shorelines and the water, the impact of the proposed project shall be compared with the existing view. A Stage lB archaelogical study!will be needed for the proposed homesites. Since the proposed project is not likely to result in any change in the existing noise level, a subsection on Noise does not seem necessary at this time. As required by subsection V, the DEIS should address the significant beneficial as well as the adverse environmental effects that are likely to result from implementation of this project as proposed. In Subsection VI, discuss the mitigation measures to reduce anticipated environmental impacts in depth. (Since many of the anticipated problems were discussed at the same time that we went over Subsection IV of the scoping outline, these measures were not mentioned again when we went through this section of the checklist.) Subsection VII shall address unavoidable adverse environmental impacts should the proposal be built. In Subsection VIII, alternative layouts should include different lot layouts, different densities; and perhaps different housing types; e.g. condominiums or townhouses. This was not specifically stated at the scoping meeting, but the Planning Board recon~nends that this discussion of the alternatives address the environmental impacts that may result with each. Some of the alternatives that may be proposed in this section may have significantly different environmental impacts than the initial proposal. The difference in the impacts should be noted and their significance examined. Ail utility extensions shall be placed underground. Site orientation shall also be addressed with each of the alternatives. A discussion pursuant to the subsections on Technology and Mix of Activities is not seen as necessary at this time. Subsection VIII. B. on alternative sites must be addressed, at least briefly. Subsection VIII. C. on alternative size must address changes in the density. Subsection VIII. D. should be addressed in the context of a residential development. Subsection VIII. E. on Alternative Land uses should focus on environmentally compatible uses. Subsection VIII. F. on No Acti6n should address the continuation of the present use through the renovation of the existing cottages. It was noted during the scoping -7- session that the No Action alternative could result in the withdrawal of the subdivision application before the Planning Board. The Subsection on VIII. G., Other, shall include a synopsis of alternative methods of ownership and proposed uses of the open space areas that may be feasible should any of the alternative layouts set forth be pursued instead of the initial proposal. Subsection IX. shall discuss the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that will result from the completion of this proposal. Subsection X. of the DEIS should address the development potential that this project will have on the area, specifically the adjoining marina known as Brick Cove and the residential community that surrounds this project. The DEIS should address the ramifications of this growth with regard to the potential increase in traffic on Sage Boulevard; the potential increase in population and the concommitant increase in the need for services such as improved road access, public water and waste disposal facilities; the potential impacts of such growth on the visual amenities and the potential conflicts with the surrounding community. (The above-listing is not intended to be inclusive. Any growth inducing aspect should be included.) There should be at least a cursory discussion of the topics noted in Subsection XI. A discussion pursuant to Subsection XII. was deemed not necessary at this time due to the proposed nature of the project. Appendices will be used for the presentation of documentation, reports, scientific data, and all maps. (Particular care should be taken to ensure that the information presented in the DEIS corresponds to that shown on the maps and vice versa.) If there are any questions about the content of this letter by either yourself or any of the coordinating agencies that are listed below, a letter should be sent to this office immediately. Enc. cc: John Bredemeyer, Judith T. Terry, Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman III, President, Town Clerk for Board of Trustees Southold Town Board SCOPING CHECKLIST ISSUES OUTLINE NORTHFORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIl · Impact on rare & endangered species that utilize the site. (Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat ) · Impact that improvements to Sage Blvd. would have on significant freshwater wetlands. How many acres? How much fill? how will drainage system be built? · Use of Sage Basin for boat mooring. BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES .......... · Proposed action requires a local tidal wetland permit for all activities within 75' of all wetlands and to a depth of 5' below mean sea level. · Insufficient information to assess wetland impact associated with need to improve access road north of southerly 1,500 feet. · More Detailed plans for Community Area "H". Explore possibility of dedicating this area to the N.Y.S.D.E.C. · Mooring plans for the northerly most basin, "Sage Basin" should be detailed or eliminated. The southerly most basin is large enough to meet the needs of the subdivision. Plans for the southerly most basin should be submitted. The southerly most basin should be laid out to show that it in fact will accommodate a vessel for each lot, if that is what is sought. · More detailed information about the "phragmitic pond" located on lots 3 & 4 el. depth, soils, flora, fauna and water quality. Does pond support biological activity that may be impacted by development? Does impact to pond relate to Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Area? Identify the nature and relevance of such unavailable or uncertain information; and Provide a summary of existing credible scientific evidence, if available; and Assess the likelihood of occurrence and consequences of the potential impact, even if the probability is Iow, using theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. This assessment should be applied only where reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the environment are possible and it is not intended to be applied in the review of such actions as shopping mails, residential subdivisions and commerical facilities even though the size and scale of some such projects may be extensive. Xlll. Appendices (include technical information) Following is a list of materials typically use in support of the ElS. A. List of underlying studies, report and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. List all federal, state, regional or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevent correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final ElS) Additional Draft ElS Scoping Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft ElS. Attach additional sheets, if necessary. Clarification of ALL boat slips needed -18- Do ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1. Increased dependence on automobile use 2. Increased levels of traffic due to proposed project ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Design methods to reduce fuel use for heating cooling and lighting a. conventional technology Examples: --insulation --thermopane windows --use of Iow wattage lights Co innovative technology Examples: --heat pumps --solor panels --wind energy --use of waste heat from an industrial plant --use of recycled materials efficient layout Examples: --orientation of structures in relation to summer and winter sunlight --clustering of structures to maximize common walls --shortening of utility runs --shared insulation and heating Indirect energy benefits a. location and design of facility to accomodate mass transit b. use of shuttle buses c. location of facility to minimize travel distance E. OTHER Xll. Assessment of Unavailable Information - not needed In certain situations involving major developments (such as an oil supertanker port, a liquid propane/natural gas storage facility, a resource recovery facility or a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility), information regarding reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the environment may not be available. Such information may be unavailable because the means to obtain it are unknown or the cost of obtaining it is exhorbitant, or because there is uncertainty about its validity. If such information is essential to an agency's S~QRA finding, the ElS must: -17- OTHER - ? on ownership of open space (dedication?); also questions raised on "evolution" from "forever wild" to "passive use" (bird sanctuary vs tennis court) - clarification of this issue is needed (conflict of "parkland" vs "forever wild" areas) IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. X. Growth-Inducing Aspects Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. Listed on the next page are examples of topics that are typically affected by the growth induced by a project. A. POPULATION Increase in business and resident population, due to the creation or relocation of business Increases in resident population due to the construction of housing SUPPORT FACILITIES Business created to serve the increased population Service industries created to supply new facility C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Introduction or improvement of infrastructure (roads, waste disposal, sewers, water) to service proposed project Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infrastructure (re: adjacent subdivisions) D. OTHER XI. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources (if applicable) Identify the energy sources to be used, anticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption. The examples listed below are typical issues to be considered when addressing this topic. A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES -16- Co Do ALTERNATIVE SITES (short) 1. Limiting factors availability of land suitability of alternative site to accomodate design requirements availability of utilities suitable market area compatibility with local zoning and master plan compatibility with certified agricultural districts compatibility with regional objectives accessibility of site to transportation routes and service population ALTERNATIVE SIZE (more or less lots) Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTiON/OPERATION SCHEDULING Commence construction at a different time Phase construction/operation Restrict construction/operation work schedule ALTERNATIVE LAND USE Suitability of site for other uses other types of commercial uses other types of industry different types of housing agricultural use other NO ACTION Impacts of no action a. effect on public need b. effect on private developers' need c. beneficial or adverse environmental impacts "No action" alternative, in this case, is the continuation of and possible renovation of the existing homes. Renovations would need building permits; not involved with Planning Board. -15- bo develop measures to convey cultural information to the community (e.g. through scientific/popular reports, displays) prepserve architecturally significant structures and make an adequate permanent photographic and statistical record of those that must be destroyed other o Noise a. schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (eady morning, night) b. assure adherence to construction noise standards c. design berms and landscaping to block and absorb noise d. other VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VIII. Alternatives This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES Site layout (alternative layout ?) a. density and location of structures b. location of access routes, parking and utility routes (underground) Orientation a. compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b. site size and setback requirements 4 Technology (not needed) a. pollution control equipment b. innovative vs. proven technologies Mix of activities (not needed) a. addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility -14- II B. LAND USE AND ZONING Existing land use and zoning a. design project to comply with existing land use plans b. design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use c. other C. COMMUNITY SERVICES Police protection a. minimize local police protection responsibilities by providing private security force b. provide security systems, alarms for facility c. provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community other Fire protection a. use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b. incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c. provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community d. other Utilities a. install utility services underground b. incorporate water-saving fixtures into facility design c. incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design d. other D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Visual a. bo C° do resources design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surroundings minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design of lighting and signs (consider: height, size, intensity, glare and hours of lighting operation) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities other Historic and archaeological resources a. Prepare a plan, including measures to mitigate impacts to historic/archaeological resources through data recovery, avoidance and/or restriction of project activities -13- and wildlife cycles c. other E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (not needed) Soils a. b. C. d. select/design project to avoid viable agricultural land reclaim disturbed agricultural soil profiles for agricultural purposes schedule activity when crops are off fields and soil is firm other Agricultural land management systems a. re-establish access drives, fence-lines and any disturbed land management systems b. re-establish any disturbed erosion control and drainage systems c. install soil and water management practices to restore or enhance soil drainage and stability d. preserve open space for agricultural use e. develop lease back arrangements to allow continued agricultural use on all or portion of site f. other Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION Transportation a. design adequate and safe access to project site to handle project traffic flow b. install adequate traffic control devices c. optimize use of parking areas d. encourage car pooling and operation of facility during non-peak traffic times e. design special routing and restricted hours for delivery truck traffic f. other Public a. transportation adjust public transportation routes and schedules to service the facility encourage use of public transportation by using incentive programs for employees or by selling tickets in facility other -12- contingency plans for accidental spills other Surface water a. ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation Examples: --haybales --temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas --landscaping b. design adequate stormwater control system ¢. construct/modify sewage treatment facilities d. restrict use of salt or sand for road and parking area snow removal e. avoid direct discharges to surface water resources f. require secondary or tertiary containment of products/wastes g. contingency plans for accidental spills h. other AIR RESOURCES Air quality a. assure proper construction Practices Examples --fugitive dust control --proper operation and maintenance of construction equipment b. design traffic improvements to reduce congestion and vehicle delay c. install and ensure the proper operation of emission odor control devices d. initiate a program for monitoring of air quality e. other TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY ., Vegetation a. restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b. preserve part of site as a natural area c. after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation d. purchase open space at another location and dedicate to local government or conservation organization Fish, a. ShelIfish and Wildlife provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species schedule construction to avoid sensitive pedods of fish, shellfish -11- 4. Other V. Significant Environmental Impacts (adverse or beneficial) Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. VI. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Format: specific topics in depth, one at a time Natural Resource GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a. use excavated material for land reclamation b. use facility wastes (ash, sludge) for land reclamation c. other 2. Surface use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping minimize disturbance of non-construction sites design and implement soil erosion control plan other 3. Topography a° Co avoid construction on areas of steep slope design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope other WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a. design/modify system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b. maintain permeable areas on the site c. institute a program for monitoring water quality in adjacent wells d. require secondary or tertia~ containment of products/wastes -10- °8. Public water supply · 9. Solid waste disposal o10. Sewage treatment facilities ol 1. Other DEMOGRAPHY Population characteristics a. discussion of existing population parameters Examples: --distribution --density --household size and composition b. discusison of projections for population growth 2. Other: CULTURAL RESOURCES Visual resources a. description of the physical character of the community Examples: --urban vs. rural examine from land & water view b. description of natural areas of significant scenic value c. identification of structures of significant architectural design Historic and archeological resources a. location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Storewide Inventory identification of site having potential significant archeological value; include results of cultural resource survey, if conducted Stage lB Archaeological study for homesite areas needed Noise a. b. (not needed) identification of existing level of noise in the community identification of major sources of noise Examples: --airports --major highways --industrial/commercial facilities -9- 3. Pedestrian environment - include Conklin Point 4. Other: Potential of public dedication LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area Examples: --commercial --residential --agricultural --business --retail --industrial --vacant description of existing zoning of. site and surrounding area include "Bay View Heights" and "August Acres" description of any affected agricultural district or other farmland retention program boundary in and surrounding the site 2. Land use plans Other description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) Note: -1. analysis for year 'round occupancy, not "second homes" Educational facilities Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities -8- 3. Associated operations number and types of farm operations on and adjacent to site Examples: --dairy --grain --orchard type and proximity of farm-related facilities Examples: --storage units/barns --sorting/packing houses --refrigeration units --roadside markets access to cropland (including detached fields) access for farm equipment to public roads Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION Transportation services a. description of the size, capacity and condition of services ExampIes: --roads, canals, railroads, bridges --parking facilities --traffic control --access/egress from site b. description of current level of use of services (& projected use) Examples: --a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow --vehicle mix --source of existing traffic parking to serve 11 (?) slips in Sage Cove use by 10 homeowners 10 or 11 slips - clarify additional slips ?; use ? access ? Note: points were raised: moorings (involves no construction) vs slip;~ (involves construction) - clarify; 2.87 acres water surface could accomodate 100 or more slips r why use this area ? 2. Public transportation (not needed) ao decription of the current availability of service description of present level,of use -7- 2. Fish, a. Shellfish and Wildlife list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species discussion of fish, shell fish and wildlife population characteristics Examples --species presence and abundance --distribution --dominance --unique, rare and endangered species --productivity 3. Wetlands a. list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b. discuss wetland characteristics Examples: --acreage --vegetative cover --classification --benefits of wetland, such as flood and erosion control, recreation Special Area - Conkiin Point (state Designation); include all relevant information with proposed changes, if any. To avoid confusion, discuss each area in depth, not "back forth" AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (not needed) Soils a. list soils by name, slope and soil group ranking within NYS Land Classification System (! NYCRR 370) number of acres within each group location of site on soil survey map Agricultural land management systems inventory of existing erosion control and drainage systems Examples: --subsurface drain lines --outlet/diversion ditches --strip cropping --diversion terraces relationship of proposed action to existing soil and water conservation plans (if appli~cable) -6- of existing roadway, proposed drainage facilities, drainage from impervious surfaces on each lot, road specifications (alternative specification); width - 24' with curb, nothing to be done to the first __ I.f. ?; widening - benefit ?; dedication to the Town ? AIR RESOURCES (not needed) Climate a. discussion of seasonal variation and extremes Examples: --temperature --humidity --precipitation --wind Air Quality a. description of existing air quality levels Examples: --list the National and State Air Quality Standards for the project area and the compliance status for each standard b. identification of existing sources or pollutants-fixed or mobile c. identification of any sensitive recepters in project area Examples: --hospitals, schools, nursing homes, parks d. description of existing monitoring program (if applicable) D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY Vegetation a. list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b. discussion of site vegetation characteristics Examples --species presence and abundance --age --size --distribution --dominance. --community types --unique, rare and endar~gered species --value as habitat for wildlife --productivity -5- e. other Topography a. description of topography at project site Examples: --slopes --prominent or unique features b. description of topography of surrounding area WATER RESOURCES Groundwater a. location and description of aquifers and recharge areas Examples: --depth of water table (test borings to bb done on days of seasonal high water table) --seasonal variation --quality --quantity --flow clay? public water -existing capacity, size of mains, expansion (?), show mains & hydrants, how are lots 3 & 4 to be serviced? b. identification of present uses and level of use Of groundwater Examples: --location of existing wells --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses Surface water a. location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the proiect Examples: --seasonal variation --quantity --classification according to New York State Department of Health b. identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters examples: road in --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses --recreational c. description of existing drainage areas (no existing drainage facilities) , patterns and channels d. discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of water supply, effect on wetlands, tearing up -4- IV. Eo properties d. other 2. Operation a. type of operation b. schedule of operation c. other CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLANS (not needed) (for projects of planned limited life such as landfills) APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements (Town Trustees, State) Environmental Setting Place acheck in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the Draft Natural Resource GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a. composition and thickness of subsurface material Examples: --depth to, and nature of, bedrock formations and impermeable layers --occurrence of an extractive mineral resource --usefulness as construction material b. earthquake potential Surface a. List of soil types (area of "made land") b. discussion of soil characteristics Examples: --physical properties (indication of soils hydrological {infiltration} capabilities) --engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) --agricultural properties (soil profile characteristics) when agricultural land resources are involved c. distribution of soil types at project site d. suitability for use Examples: --agriculture (not needed) --recreation --construction --mining (not needed) ~ -3- III. Description of the Proposed Action Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the draft ElS. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans 3. Objectives of the proposed sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a. social b. economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site (legal information on right to use and upgrade access via Sage Blvd.) 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site 4. Other DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Total site area a. proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) (pavement in 50' r.o.w.) b. amount of land to be cleared c. open space (broken down by wetland and upland areas) 2. Structures a. gross, leaseable area (GLA) (not needed) b. layout of buildings (attached, enclosed, separate) See Dept. of State comments c. site plans and profile view d. material storage e. drainage plans f. above/underground pipelines g. staging area for material handling 3. Parking a. pavement area b. number of spaces and layout 4. Other CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction (as relevant) a. total construction period anticipated b. schedule of construction c. future potential deve!opment, on site or on adjoining -2- The following represents the results of the Scoping Session held April 15, 1992 at the Southold Town Hall regarding the project known a Those present were: Valerie Scopaz - Town Planning Dept. Staff Member Melissa Spiro - Town Planning Dept. Staff Member Mark Mac Donald - Planning Board Member Richard Van de Kieft - Consultant (Town) Michael P. Bontje, Pres., B. Laing Associates Edward S. Silsbe, Architect, Frendolph Corp. ~,-~,~..~ John FIynn, Abutting Owner Sherry Johnson, No. Fork Eh. Council Note: portions of the "standard" (NYSDEC) checklist, which are not required, are indicated: (not needed) I. Cover Sheet Shall include: B. C. D. Eo F° Whether it is a draft or final statement Name or other descriptive title of the project Location (county and town, village or city) of the project Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement, and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number Date of acceptance of the Draft ElS In the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated. II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS's. The summary should include: Ao Brief description of the action Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts (issues of controversy must be specified) Mitigation measures proposed Alternatives considered Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) -1- James Monsell, Robert DeLuca, Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Van de Kieft, John J. Raynor, P.E. Superintendent, Greenport Utilities Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services & L.S., NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE · Home Owners Association Parcel "A" is located within the boundaries of the Conklin Point significant habitat. Intensive use of the open space should be discouraged in order to minimize impacts to nesting activities of colonial water birds in the area. · Determine if project will result in need for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. · Impact of project on public access atong the shore line should be discussed. Ownership of underwater parcels should be established. Possible opportunity to enhance or develop public access via this project should be addressed. · Discuss impact of proposed development on commercial fishing activities. · Discuss impact of proposed dock modifications and use on state water quality classifications and existing shellfish beds. Will all non-point runoff be contained on-site. More detailed plans should be prepared showing how this concern wilt be addressed. · Explore the possibility of minimizing impacts on the visual quality and water quality of Southold Bay by maximizing building setbacks from the waterfront. MR. FLYNN · Substantial unpaid taxes. · Unreasonably Iow estimate of improvement costs. · Concerns about eventual dedication and/or uses of open space parcels. · Proposed road cannot meet Tidal or Freshwater Wetland setbacks. · Questions raised about soils types (made-land), length of shore line (4,900 I.f. vs 1,700 I.f.) · Possible future development of portions of the site as a marina. Also, future expansion of the existing Brick Cove Marina which may be possible due to proposed road improvements. · Potential impacts of both the proposed action and potential roarina development on existing productive shellfish beds should be addressed. (- 14.14-9 (2/87)--9¢ 617.21 Appendix D State Environmental Quality Review Scoping Checklist SEQR The following checklist of topics is intended as a starting point for developing a detailed scope for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Typically, no one project will require a discussion of all the topic areas contained in this document. Through the scoping process, the list of topics should be refined to reflect issues unique to the proposed project. Topic areas may be de- leted, added or elaborated upon, to arrive at the final scoping document. The purpose of the checklist format is to iden- tify the basic topic areas of the Draft EIS. This is accomplished by reviewing the list and placing a check in the box located to the left of these topics which should be discussed. The model scoping checklist can also be used as a worksheet, including commentsl suggestions and identifica- tion of the particular example(s) that are relevant to a detailed discussion of the topic or issue that has been checked. Conversely, those topics which are not checked, are issues not associated with the project and may be eliminated from discussion in the Draft ElS. The next step is to expand the list to include or elaborate on those topics unique to the pro- posed proiect. A blank sheet is included at the end of the checklist for such additional information. The scoping process involves several steps in addition to compiling a list of topics. Scoping also includes discussions on the quantity and quality of informaton required and the methods of obtain- ing that data. NOTE: This check list was designed to be used in conjunction with the section on scoping contained in SEQR Guideline-Draft and Final EIS's. It i.; also important to emphasize that this checklist should serve only as a model to assist in the scoping of a Draft ElS. It should not be used as a substitute fSr actively scoping Draft EIS for a specific project. 1. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town, village or city) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the state- ment and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are re- quired for Draft and Final EIS's. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse im- pacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternatives considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) !11. Description of the Proposed Action Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the draft ElS. [] A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history 2.Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on ad- opted community developments plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a.) social b.) economic [] B. LOCATION 1.Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site 3.Description of existing zoning of proposed site 4. Other: [] C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1 .Total site area a.) proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) b.) amount of land to be cleared c.) open space 2. Structures a.) gross leaseable area (GLA), if applicable b.) layout of buidings (attached, enclosed, separate) c.) site plans and profile view d.) material storage e.) drainage plans f.) above,underground pipelines g.) staging area for material handling 3. Parking a.) pavement area b.) number of spaces and [ayout 4. Ot, h~i': [] D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a.) total construction period anticipated b.) schedule of construction c.) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties d.) other: 2. Operation a.) type of operation b.) schedule of operation c.) other: [] E. CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLANS (for projects of planned limited life such as landfills) [] F. APPROVALS 1.. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2.Other permit approval or funding reguirements IV. Environmental Setting Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the Draft ElS. Natural Resource [] A. GEOLOGY [] l.Subsurface a.) composition and thickness of subsurface material examples: --depth to, and nature of, bedrock formations and impermeable layers --occurrence of an extractive mineral resource --usefulness as construction material b.) earthquake potential [] 2.Surface a.) List of soil types b.) discussion of soil characteristics examples: --physical properties (indication of soils hydrological (infiltration capabilities) --engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) --agricultural properties (soil profile characteristics) when agr~- cultural land resources are involved c.) distribution of soil types at project site d.) suitability for use examples: --agriculture --recreation --construction --mining e.) other: [] 3 .Topography a.) description of topography at project site examples: --slopes --prominent or unique features b.) description of topography of sur- rounding area [] B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a.) location and description of aquifers and recharge areas examples: --depth of water table --seasonal variation --quality --quantity --flow b.) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater examples: --location of existing wells --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses [] 2. Surface water a.) location and decription of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project examples: --seasonal variation --quantity --classification according to New York State Department of Health b.) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters examples: --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses --recreational c.) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d. discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutro- phication of water supply [] C. AIR RESOURCES [] 1.Climate a.) discussion of seasonal variations and extremes examples: --temperature --humidity --precipitation --wind [] 2. Air quality a.) description of existing air quality levels examples: --list the National arid State Air Quality Standards for the project area and the compliance status for each standard b.) identification of existing sources or pollutants-fixed or mobile . c.) identification of any sensitive recepters in project area examples: --hospitals, schools, nursing homes, parks d.) description of existing monitoring program (if applicable) [] D. TERRESTRAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY I. Vegetation a.) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b.) discussion of site vegetation characteristics examples: --species presence and abundance --age --size --distribution --dominance --community types --unique, rare and endangered species --value as habitat for wildlife --productivity [] 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a.) list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migatory and resident species b.) discussion of fish, she]Irish and wildlife population characteristics examples: --species presence and abundance --distribution --dominance --unique, rare and endangered species --productivity [] 3.Wetlands a,) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b,) discuss wetland characteristics examples; --acreage --vegetative cover --classification --benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation E, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1, Soils a,) list soils by name, slope and soil group ranking within NYS Land Classification System (1 NYCRR 370) b.) number of acres within each group c.) location of site on soil survey map [] 2.Agricultural land management system(s) a.) inventory of existing erosion control and drainage systems examples: --subsurface drain lines --outlet/diversion ditches --strip cropping --diversion terraces b,) relationship of proposed action to existing soil and water conservation plans (if applicable) [] 3.Associated operations a.) number and types of farm operations on and adjacent to site examples: --dairy --grain --orchard b.) type and proximity of farm related facilities examples: --storage units/barns --sorting/packing houses --refrigeration units --roadside markets c.) access to cropland (including detached fields) d.) access for farm equipment to public roads Human Resources [] A. TRANSPORTATION [] 1.Transportation services a.) description of the size, capacity and condition of services examples: --roads, canals, rai!roads, bridges --parking facilities --traffic control --access/egress from site b.) description of current level of use of services examples: --a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow --vehicle mix --source of existing traffic [] 2.Public transportation a.) description of the current avail- ability of service b.) description of present level of use [] 3.Pedestrian environment [] 4~Other: [] B. LAND USE AND ZONING [] ~ .Existing land use and zoning a.) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area examples: --commercial --residential --agricultural --business --retail --industrial b.) description of existing zoning of site and'surrounding area c.) description of any affected agri- cultural district or other farmland retention program boundary in and surrounding the site [] 2. Land use plans a.) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area b.) discussion of future development trends or pressures [] 3. Other; [] C. COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a ]ist of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) [] ! .Educational facilities [] 2.Police protection [] 3. Fire protection [] 4.Health care facilities [] 5.Social services [] 6.Recreational facilities [] 7. Utilities [] 8. Public water supply [] 9.Solid waste disposal [] 10.Sewage treatment facilities [] 11.Other: D. DEMOGRAPHY [] ! .Population characteristics a.) discussion of existing population parameters examples: --distribution --density --household size and composition b.) discussion of projections for popu- lation growth [] 2.Other: E. CULTURAL RESOURCES [] 1.Visual resources a.) description of the physical char- acter of the community examples: --urban vs, rural b.) description of natural areas of significant scenic value c.) identification of structures of significant architectural design [] 2. Historic and archaeological resources a.) location and description of his'toric areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory b.) identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value include results of cultural resource survey, if conducted [] 3. Noise a.) identification of existing level of noise in the community b.) identification of major sources of noise examples --airports --major highways --industrial/commercial facilities [] 4, Other: V. Significant Environmental impacts Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. VI. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environ- mental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid poten- tial adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource [] A. GEOLOGY !. Subsurface a:) use excavated material for land reclamation b.) use facility wastes (ash, sludge) for land reclamation c.) other: 2. Surface a.) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b.) minimize disturbance of non- construction sites c.) design and implement soil erosion control plan d.) other: 3. Topography a.) avoid construction on areas of steep slope b.) design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope c.) other: [] B. WATER RESOURCES I. Groundwater a.) design/modify system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b.) maintain permeable areas on the site c.) institute a program for monitoring water quality in adjacent wells d.) require secondary or tertiary con- tainment of products/wastes e.) contingency plans for accidental spills f.) other: 2. Surface water a.) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation examples: --hay bales --temporary restoration of ~ege- tation to disturbed areas --landscaping b.) design adequate stormwater control system c.) construct/modify sewage treatment facilities d.) restrict use of salt or sand for road and parking area snow removal e,) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources f.) require secondary or tertiary containment of products/wastes g.) contingency plans i~or accidental spills h.) other: [] C. AIR RESOURCES I. Air quality a.) assure proper construction practices examples: --fugitive dust control --proper operation and mainten- ance of construction equipment b.) design traffic improvements to re- duce congestion and vehicle delay c.) install and ensure the proper operation of emission odor control devices d.) initiate a program for monitoring of air quality e.) other: [] D. TERRESTRALAND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a.) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b.) preserve part of site as a natural area c.) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation d.) purchase open space at another location and dedicate to local government or conservation organization 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a.) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species b.) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles c.) other: [] E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1 .Soils a.) select/design project to avoid viable agricultural land b.) reclaim disturbed agricultural soil profiles for agricultural purposes c.) schedule activity when crops are off fields and soil is firm d.) other: 2. Agricultural land management systems a.) re-establish access drives, fence-- lines and any disturbed land management systems b.) re-establish any disturbed erosion control and drainage systems c.) install soil and water management practices to restore or enhance soil drainage and stability d.) preserve open space for agricultural use e.) develop lease back arrangements to allow continued agricultural use on all or portion of site f.) other: Human Resources [] A. TRANSPORTATION !. Transportation a.) design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow b.) install adequate traffic control devices c.) optimize use of parking areas d.) encourage car pooling and oper- ation of facility during non-peak traffic times e.) design special routing and restricted hours for delivery truck traffic f.) other: 2. Public transportation a.) adjust public transportation routes and schedules to service the facility b.) encourage use of public transpor- tation by using incentive programs for employees or by selling tickets in facility c.) other: [] B. LAND USE AND ZONING l.Existing land use and zoning a.) design project to comply with existing land use plans b.) design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surround- ing land use c.) other: [] C. COMMUNITY SERVICES I. Police protection a.) minimize local police protection responsibilities by providing private security force b.) provide security systems, alarms for facility c.) provide equipment, funds or ser- vices directly to the community d.) other: 2. Fire protection a.) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b.) incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c.) provide equipment, funds or ser- vices directly to the community d.) other: 3. Utilities a.) install utility services underground b.) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design c.) incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design d.) other: [] D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 .Visual resources a.) design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surroundings b.) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design of lighting and signs (consider: height, size, intensity, glare and hours of lighting operation) c.) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equip- ment and facilities d.) other: 2. Historic and archaeological resources a.) Prepare a plan, including measures to mitigate impacts to historic/ archaeological resources through ~ data recovery, avoidance and/or restriction of project activities 6 b.) develop measures to convey cul- tural information to the community (e.g. through scientific/popular reports, displays) c.) preserve architecturally signifi- cant structures and make an adequate permanent photographic and statistical record of those that must be destroyed d.) other: 3. Noise a.) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morn- ing, night) b.) assure adherence to construction noise standards c.) design berms and landscaping to block and absorb noise d.) other: Vll. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regard- less of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VIII. Alternatives This section contains categories of alterna- tives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a compara- tive assessment of costs, benefits and environmen- tal risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alter. native is or is not feasible. Identify those categories of alternatives which should be included in the ElS by placing a check in the box located to the left of the topic. [] A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1.Site layout a.) density and location of structures b.) location of access routes, parking and utility routes 2. Orientation a.) compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b.) site size and set back requirements 2. Technology a.) pollution control equipment b.) innovative vs. proven technologies 4. Mix of activities a) addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility [] B. ALTERNATIVE SITES 1. Limiting factors a.) availability of land b.) suitability of alternative site to accomodate design requirements c.) availability of utilities d.) suitable market area e.) compatibility with local zoning and master plan f.) compatibility with certified agri- cultural districts g.) compatibility with regional objectives h.) accessibility of site to transporta- tion routes and service population [] C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE ! .increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts 2.Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs [] D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/ OPERATION SCHEDULING 1.. Commence construction at a different time 2. Phase construction/operation 3. Restrict construction/operation work schedule [] E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ! .Suitability of site for other uses a.) other types of commercial uses b.) other types of industry c.) different types of housing d.) agricultural use e.) other: [] F. NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a,) effect on public need b.) effect on private developers' need c.) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts [] G. OTHER: IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, convert- ed or made unavailable for future use. X. Growth Inducing Aspects (if applicable) Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. Listed on the next page are examples of topics that are typi- dally affected by the growth induced by a project. [] A. POPULATION 1. Increases in business and resident population due to the creation or relocation of business 2. Increases in resident population due to the construction of housing [] B. SUPPORT FACILITIES !. business created to serve the increased population 2. Service industries created to supply new facility [] C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL !. Introduction or improvement of infra- structure (roads~ waste disposal, sewers, water) to service proposed project 2. Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infra- structure [] D. OTHER: XI. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources (if applicable) identify the energy sources to be used, anticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption. The examples listed below are typical issues to be considered when ad- dressing this topic. [] A.PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES [] B.ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG- TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION [] C.INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY CONSUMPTION ! .Increased dependence on automobile use 2. Increased levels of traffic due to proposed project D. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES 1 .Design methods to reduce fuel use for heating, cooling and lighting a.) conventional technology examples: --insulation ~thermopane windows --use of Iow wattage lights b.) innovative technology examples: --heat pumps --solar panels --wind energy --use of waste heat from an industrial plant --use of recycled materials c.) efhcient layout examples: --orientation of structures in relation to summer and winter sunlight --clustering of structures to maximize common walls --shortening of utility runs --shared insulation and heating 2. Indirect energy benefits a.) location and design of facility to accomodate mass transit b.) use of shuttle buses c.) location of facility to minimize travel distance [] E.OTHER: XII. Assessment of/Jnavailable Information In certain situations involving major develop- ments (such as an oil supertanker port, a liquid propane/natural gas storage facility, a resource recovery facility or a hazarduous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility), information regarding reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the environment may not be available. Such informa- tion may be unavailable because the means to ob- tain it are unknown or the cost of obtaining it is exhorbitant, or because there is uncertainty about its validity. If such information is essential to an agency's SEQR finding, the ElS must: A. Identify the nature and relevance of such unavailable or uncertain information; and B. Provide a summary of existing credible scientific evidence , if available; and C. Assess the likelihood of occurrence and consequences of the potential impact, even if the probability is Iow, using the- oretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. This assessment should be applied only where reasonably foreseeable catastrophic irnpacts to the environment are possible and it is not intended to be applied in the review of such actions as shop- ping malls, residential subdivisions and commer- cial facilities even though the size and scale of some such projects may be extensive. XIII. Appendices Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the ElS. A. List of underlying ~tudies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement ~ B. List all Irederal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private 8 persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevent correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final ElS) Additional Draft ElS Scoping Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft EIS. Attach additional sheets if necessary. · John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deedield Green P.O. Box 720 Reports Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Design Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Planning April 27, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Scoping Outline - Harbor View Landing Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed please find the Scoping Outline which comes from the scoping session held April 15, 1992. In preparing this outline, we relied on the outline prepared by the NYSDEC (which was reviewed, item by item, at the at the session) and pages of notes taken at the meeting. It is clear that many issues need clarification. The improvement of Sage Boulevard, the actual road specifications, the dedication of the road, future use of the proposed open space areas, boat slips, drainage, setbacks, effect on wetlands and neighboring properties and special attention to Conklin Point are just a lew of the issues raised. On the other hand, discussion about noise, air resources, new technologies and agricultural features and pursuits were deemed unnecessary. The contents of the Draft ElS are clearly spelled out in the accompanying checklist. I trust this format of presentation is acceptable. Points of concern are listed in bold type throughout the outline. As I understand it, the Planning Dept. staff will review the enclosed outline and distribute same to the concerned parties. Should you have any questions or require anything further, please contact the undersigned. encl. Very truly yours, JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Richard Van ~ The following represents the results of the Scoping Session held April 15, 1992 at the Southold Town Hall regarding the project known as Those _present were; Valerie Scopaz - Town Planning Dept. Staff Member Melissa Spire - Town Planning Dept. Staff Member Mark Mac Donald - Planning Board Member Richard Van de Kieft - Consultant (Town) Michael P. Bontje, Pres., B. Laing Associates Edward S. Silsbe, Architect, Frendolph Corp. John Flynn, Abutting Owner Sherry Johnson, No. Fork En. Council Note: portions of the "standard" (NYSDEC) checklist, which are not required, are indicated: (not needed) I. Cover Sheet Shall include: B. C. D. Whether it is a draft or final statement Name or other descriptive title of the project Location (county and town, village or city) of the project Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement, and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number Date of acceptance of the Draft ElS In the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated. Il. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS's. The summary should include: Brief description of the action Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts (issues of controversy must be specified) Mitigation measures proposed Alternatives considered Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) -1- II1. Description of the Proposed Action Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the draft ElS. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans 3. Objectives of the proposed sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a. social b. economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site (legal information on right to use and upgrade access via Sage Blvd.) 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site 4. Other DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Total site area a. proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, reads) (pavement in 50' r.o.w.) b. amount of land to be cleared c. open space (broken down by wetland and upland areas) 2. Structures a. gross, leaseable area (GLA) (not needed) b. layout of buildings (attached, enclosed, separate) See Dept. of State comments c. site plans and profile view d. material storage e. drainage plans f. above/underground pipelines g. staging area for material handling 3. Parking a. pavement area b. number of spaces and layout 4. Other CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction (as relevant) a. total construction period anticipated b. schedule of construction c. future potential development, on site or on adjoining -2- properties d. other 2. Operation a. type of operation b. schedule of operation c. other CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLANS (not needed) (for projects of planned limited life such as landfills) APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements (Town Trustees, State) IV. ElS. Environmental Setting Place a check in the box to the left of those topics to be included in the Draft Natural Resource GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a. composition and thickness of subsurface material Examples: --depth to, and nature of, bedrock formations and impermeable layers --occurrence of an extractive mineral resource --usefulness as construction matedal b. earthquake potential Surface a. List of soil types (area of "made land") b. discussion of soil characteristics Examples: --physical properties (indication of soils hydrological {infiltration} capabilities) --engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) --agricultural properties (soil profile characteristics) when agricultural land resources are involved c, distribution of soil types at project site d. suitability for use Examples: --agriculture (not needed) --recreation --construction --mining (not needed) -3- e. other Topography a. description of topography at project site Examples: --slopes --prominent or unique features b. description of topography of surrounding area WATER RESOURCES Groundwater a. location and description of aquifers and recharge areas Examples: --depth of water table (test borings to be done on days of seasonal high water table) --seasonal variation --quality --quantity --flow clay? public water -existing capacity, size of mains, expansion (?), show mains & hydrants, how are lots 3 & 4 to be serviced? b. identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater Examples: --location of existing wells --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses Surface water a. location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project Examples: --seasonal variation --quantity --classification according to New York State Department of Health b. identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters examples: road in r.o.w. --public/private water supply --industrial uses --agricultural uses --recreational c. description of existing drainage areas (no existing drainage facilities) , patterns and channels d. discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of water supply, effect on wetlands, tearing up -4- of existing roadway, proposed drainage facilities, drainage from impervious surfaces on each lot. road specifications (alternative specification); width - 24' with curb, nothing to be done to the first __ I.f. ?; widening - benefit ?; dedication to the Town ? AIR RESOURCES (not needed) Climate a. discussion of seasonal variation and extremes Examples: --temperature --humidity --precipitation --wind Air Quality a. description of existing air quality levels Examples: --list the National and State Air Quality Standards for the project area and the compliance status for each standard b. identification of existing soumes or pollutants--fixed or mobile c. identification of any sensitive recepters in project area Examples: --hospitals, schools, nursing homes, parks d. description of existing monitoring program (if applicable) D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY Vegetation a. list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b. discussion of site vegetation characteristics Examples --species presence and abundance --age --size --distribution --dominance --community types --unique, rare and endangered species --value as habitat for wildlife --productivity -5- Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a. list of fish, shellfish and wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species b. discussion of fish, shell fish and wildlife population characteristics Examples --species presence and abundance --distribution --dominance --unique, rare and endangered species --productivity 3. Wetlands a. list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b. discuss wetland characteristics Examples: --acreage --vegetative cover --classification --benefits of wetland, such as flood and erosion control, recreation Special Area - Conklin Point (state Designation); include all relevant information with proposed changes, if any. To avoid confusion, discuss each area in depth, not "back & forth" AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (not needed) Soils a. list soils by name, slope and soil group ranking within NYS Land Classification System (! NYCRR 370) number of acres within each group location of site on soil survey map Agricultural land management systems inventory of existing erosion control and drainage systems Examples: --subsurface drain lines --outlet/diversion ditches --strip cropping --diversion terraces relationship of proposed action to existing soil and water conservation plans (if applicable) -6- 3. Associated operations number and types of farm operations on and adjacent to site Examples: --dairy --grain --orchard type and proximity of farm-related facilities Examples: --storage units/barns --sorting/packing houses --refrigeration units --roadside markets access to cropland (including detached fields) access for farm equipment to public roads Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION Transportation services a. description of the size, capacity and condition of services Examples: --roads, canals, railroads, bridges --parking facilities --traffic control --access/egress from site b. description of current level of use of services (& projected use) Examples: --a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow --vehicle mix --source of existing traffic parking to serve 11 (?) slips in Sage Cove use by 10 homeowners 10 or 11 slips - clarify additional slips ?; use ? access ? Note: points were raised: moorings (involves no construction) vs slips (involves construction) - clarify; 2.87 acres water surface could accomodate 100 or more slips - why use this area ? 2. Public transportation (not needed) decription of the current availability of service description of present level of use -7- 3. Pedestrian environment - include Conklin Point 4. Other: Potential of public dedication LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area Examples: --commercial --residential --agricultural --business --retail --industrial --vacant description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area include "Bay View Heights" and "August Acres" description of any affected agricultural district or other farmland retention program boundary in and surrounding the site Land use plans a. description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area b. discussion of future development trends or pressures 3. Other COMMUNITY SERVICE (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) Note: analysis for year 'round occupancy, not "second homes" -1. Educational facilities Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities -8- · 8. Public water supply · 9. Solid waste disposal · 10, Sewage treatment facilities -11. Other DEMOGRAPHY Population characteristics a. discussion of existing population parameters Examples: --distribution --density --household size and composition b. discusison of projections for population growth 2. Other: CULTURAL RESOUROES 1. Visual a. resources description of the physical character of the community Examples: --urban vs. rural examine from land & water view description of natural areas of significant scenic value c. identification of structures of significant architectural design Historic and archeological resources a. location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory identification of site having potential significant archeological value; include results of cultural resource survey, if conducted Stage lB Archaeological study for homesite areas needed Noise a. b. (not needed) identification of existing level of noise in the community identification of major sources of noise Examples: --airports --major highways --industrial/commercial facilities -9- 4. Other V. Significant Environmental Impacts (adverse or beneficial) Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. VI. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Format: specific topics in depth, one at a time Natural Resource GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a. use excavated material for land reclamation b. use facility wastes (ash, sludge) for land reclamation c. other 2. Surface ao use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping minimize disturbance of non-construction sites design and implement soil erosion control plan other 3. Topography avoid construction on areas of steep slope design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope other WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a. design/modify system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b. maintain permeable areas on the site c. institute a program for monitoring water quality in adjacent wells d. require secondary or tertiary containment of products/wastes -10- contingency plans for accidental spills other Surface water a. ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation Examples: --haybales --temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas --landscaping b. design adequate stormwater control system c. construct/modify sewage treatment facilities d. restrict use of salt or sand for road and parking area snow removal e. avoid direct discharges to surface water resources f. require secondary or tertiary containment of products/wastes g, contingency plans for accidental spills h. other AIR RESOURCES Air quality a. assure proper construction practices Examples --fugitive dust control --proper operation and maintenance of construction equipment b. design traffic improvements to reduce congestion and vehicle delay c. install and ensure the proper operation of emission odor control devices d. initiate a program for monitoring of air quality e. other TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY Vegetation a. restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b. preserve part of site as a natural area c. after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation d. purchase open space at another location and dedicate to local government or conservation organization Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife a. provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species b. schedule construction to avoid sensitive pedods of fish, shellfish -11- and wildlife cycles c. other E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (not needed) Soils a. select/design project to avoid viable agricultural land b. reclaim disturbed agricultural soil profiles for agricultural purposes c. schedule activity when crops are off fields and soil is firm d. other Agricultural land management systems a. re-establish access drives, fence-lines and any disturbed land management systems b. re-establish any disturbed erosion control and drainage systems c. install soil and water management practices to restore or enhance soil drainage and stability preserve open space for agricultural use develop lease back arrangements to allow continued agricultural use on all or portion of site other Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION Transportation a. design adequate and safe access to project site to handle project traffic flow b. install adequate traffic control devices c. optimize use of parking areas d. encourage car pooling and operation of facility during non-peak traffic times e. design special routing and restricted hours for delivery truck traffic f. other Public a. transportation adjust public transportation routes and schedules to service the facility encourage use of public transportation by using incentive programs for employees or by selling tickets in facility other -12- B. LAND USE AND ZONING Existing land use and zoning a. design project to comply with existing land use plans b. design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use c. other C. COMMUNITY SERVICES Police protection a. minimize local police protection responsibilities by providing private security force b. provide security systems, alarms for facility c. provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community other Fire protection a. use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b. incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c. provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community d. other Utilities a. install utility services underground b. incorporate water-saving fixtures into facility design c. incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design d. other D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual a. bo resources design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surroundings minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design of lighting and signs (consider: height, size, intensity, glare and hours of lighting operation) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities other Historic and archaeological resources a. Prepare a plan, including measures to mitigate impacts to historic/archaeological resources through data recovery, avoidance and/or restriction of project activities -13- develop measures to convey cultural information to the community (e.g. through scientific/popular reports, displays) prepserve architecturally significant structures and make an adequate permanent photographic and statistical record of those that must be destroyed other Noise a. schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) assure adherence to construction noise standards design berms and landscaping to block and absorb noise other VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VIII. Alternatives This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES Site layout (alternative layout ?) a. density and location of structures b. location of access routes, parking and utility routes (underground) q Orientation a. compatibility with slope and drainage patterns b. site size and setback requirements Technology (not needed) a. pollution control equipment b. innovative vs. proven technologies Mix of activities (not needed) a. addition of businesses which would affect the operational nature of the facility -14- B. ALTERNATIVE SITES (short) 1. Limiting factors availability of land suitability of alternative site to accomodate design requirements availability of utilities suitable market area compatibility with local zoning and master plan compatibility with certified agricultural districts compatibility with regional objectives accessibility of site to transportation routes and service population ALTERNATIVE SIZE (more or less lots) Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts Increase or decrease project size to correspond to market and community needs ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERATION SCHEDULING Commence construction at a different time Phase construction/operation Restrict construction/operation work schedule ALTERNATIVE LAND USE Suitability of site for other uses other types of commercial uses other types of industry different types of housing agricultural use other NO ACTION Impacts of no action a. effect on public need b. effect on private developers' need c. beneficial or adverse environmental impacts "No action" alternative, in this case, is the continuation of and possible renovation of the existing homes. Renovations would need building permits; not involved with Planning Board. -15- Identify the nature and relevance of such unavailable or uncertain information; and Provide a summary of existing credible scientific evidence, if available; and Assess the likelihood of occurrence and consequences of the potential impact, even if the probability is Iow, using theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. This assessment should be applied only where reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the environment are possible and it is not intended to be applied in the review of such actions as shopping malls, residential subdivisions and commerical facilities even though the size and scale of some such projects may be extensive. Xlll. Appendices (include technical information) Following is a list of materials typically use in support of the ElS. A. List of underlying studies, report and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. List all federal, state, regional or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevent correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final ElS) Additional Draft ElS Scoping Topics Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the Draft ElS. Attach additional sheets, if necessary. Clarification of ALL boat slips needed -18- ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1. Increased dependence on automobile use 2. Increased levels of traffic due to proposed project ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Design methods to reduce fuel use for heating cooling and lighting a. conventional technology Examples: --insulation --thermopane windows --use of Iow wattage lights innovative technology Examples: --heat pumps --solor panels --wind energy --use of waste heat from an industrial plant --use of recycled materials efficient layout Examples: --orientation of structures in relation to summer and winter sunlight --clustering of structures to maximize common walls --shortening of utility runs --shared insulation and heating Indirect energy benefits a. location and design of facility to accomodate mass transit b. use of shuttle buses c, location of facility to minimize travel distance E. OTHER Xll. Assessment of Unavailable Information - not needed In certain situations involving major developments (such as an oil supertanker port, a liquid propane/natural gas storage facility, a resoume recovery facility or a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility), information regarding reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts to the environment may not be available. Such information may be unavailable because the means to obtain it are unknown or the cost of obtaining it is exhorbitant, or because there is uncertainty about its validity. If such information is essential to an agency's SEQRA finding, the ElS must: -17- OTHER - ? on ownership of open space (dedication?); also questions raised on "evolution" from "forever wild" to "passive use" (bird sanctuary vs tennis court) - clarification of this issue is needed (conflict of "parkland" vs "forever wild" areas) IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. X. Growth-Inducing Aspects Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. Listed on the next page are examples of topics that are typically affected by the growth induced by a project. a. POPULATION Increase in business and resident population, due to the creation or relocation of business Increases in resident population due to the construction of housing B. SUPPORT FACILITIES Business created to serve the increased population Service industries created to supply new facility C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Introduction or improvement of infrastructure (roads, waste disposal, sewers, water) to service proposed project Creation of further growth potential by construction of improved infrastructure (re: adjacent subdivisions) D. OTHER XI. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources (if applicable) Identify the energy sources to be used, anticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce energy consumption. The examples listed below are typical issues to be considered when addressing this topic. A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES -16- P~ --473800--0g~ gg $OUTHOLD TOWN ~ PLANNING BCr''~ ': .... P1--473800--0010f:~ TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road RO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: FROM: RE: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Trustees ~ Harborview Realty Scopi~g'~Session SCTM #1000-5-~ DATE: April 13, 1992 In the likely event that no representative of this Board is able to attend the scoping session for the above referenced action, would you kindly append our most recent comments to the scoping document such that our concerns are addressed by the applicant in the DEIS. cc: Harborview file PLANNING BOA _~ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40--$UNY, Slony Brook, New York 117904356 Benner~ Or]owskl, ,Jr., Chairman P,O, B~X 117~ Ro~thnld, NY l]qT] April 1~, ]~P Thom# C. Jorllng Comml,,tl~er the ~egul~t~ry Affalr~ snaly~t who ~s ~oord~nating the State'~ review n~ ~i_~ project. In addition, please consider th~ fo~lowinq ~?risdlntion: ~gardless of the b.lkhesd on this property, th~ DepartI~ent w~].l have ~uYt~dl~%o~ over lots identified as the Frendolph Covp. pla~. FOr these three lot~, at ]~ast, all D~partm~nt'~ Seth~rks aad d~ve]opm~nt reatr~t~mts will app]~. The bu]khead tha~ ~i~ts ~n th~ southern border of th~ proposed ]~l~:lgdirt3on of lots dirmcrly north of that bulkhead, lots 4-i0, wi~] have s b~ar~ng o,] th~ question] of the State's 3urisdict~on ov~t' ]ot~ 4-10. Once tidal wetland buffers nene:~sary tn ~atntaln be~ch width New York Stale Department of E.vlronmenlal Conse~val!on Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-235~ Thom,,~ C. Jorllng Comml;;ioner n~ ~rogen ~o~d~n~ in groundwater d~e to the app] ic~t~oD fertilizer d~.l r ing applied ol!ty dqylDg growing mmDth~. If testing w~re condu~te~ .... h.m~.a~- had b~en d~,lr~ng the lat= fall cF w~l~tF, r wbeu t.h~se ~ ~' ~o ~ .... a, ~on th~ D~par-tment wmt] a speelal c~dition ta th~.~ appl-;~ other ! al~d~capin~ specl~ wi thil~ '100 of t~da~ wet]ands req~li~e any ~upplam~nt. al appl~a~Ir)r, ~f fe~'tl!i~er or The D~partme~It wlll prohibl~ their rise w~thin trha~ 100' zone, HOW wlll th~ runoff nompo~nt on the water budget change (J.~lcreas~) clearing of rhm lots c)r change it~ v~getative sp~aJ~s (water uptake,/ ~ , Hew will t)l~ il]~[-~se~ ~n rl)lloff affect war~' q {a, mitigated? (~ page _ D1,_DO,.,,~, Beca~s~ ,~f t.l',~ prmva]~m of ialt water jD~.rHsJc~I !~ wells and the relative height of the grnmld water tab]~,,/ d, ~ ,~ t'~t. borings m) days whet r~qn~l'~ that, t,h~ applicant hlgh ~tde o~cur~. This w~ll en~ur~ that - ~' 'iundwat~r is h~ing m~asur¢,d. The D~paYtmmnt wll] r~quira that ~anJ*arY ~e~9onal~hi~b qrou~dwater ~ Thls should provide an admquat e pollution buffer so that ~ewa{:e i;=achat~ ~oe~ not enter marine waters. G~neral .Comme~t.s: Oh pag~ ~4, rh~ EIS ldentJfi~, abandoned car*~ that were dumped near the Co~k;ln Pni,,~t inlet opening, The D~partment wJl~ r~q-,lre r, hat t~og~ other material conside'red to h~ ~olJd waste, Department w%~] b~ happy t~n r*v~+w ~ proposal inlet in ~,%me other approvable fa~h~nn, stabilized that ~ al-$ , arid airy i-emoted . The pt. abJ'lize fhat ¢'orp. plai? common area for r~creatton" Hew YOrk Stale Department of Environmental Conservation Buitdi.; 40--SUNY, Stony ~rook, New York 117~0-2356 Thomss C. Jorllng Commissioner by a ~andy beach ~p~t, ~nc~ b~th the New York ~t~te threatened p]pl~!g plover a~d the New York ~te ~ndangsred le~t t~rn have 30), and b~cat%~e this sp~t ~rea provld~ ideal nesting habitat for Conkl~n Pninr should be de~ded to the Town or the Nature Conservancy for q%te~.~ons my imput please feel fr~e to Marine Cesource Speciall~.t NY.q-DEC call ~c: ~oger ~vans, Divi$%nn of R~gulatory Affairs New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40--SUNY, ~tony 8rook, New York 117g0-2356 ~oqer ~vans Kmvi.n R, D~i Harbor View r~a]ty: 4730-00470 Marmh 10, 19~2 Thomal C, Jorllng COmmissioner l-eq]iF~d t~ nondtl~t a more formal l'eVJeW: The attach~(t snrvey ident, ifte$ the subject lot a~ kot 12.5, lnr as 12.~ (86,5 a~re~). P~,~a~e h~ve them id~ntif!~]~ and have ibm appl~ant ~upply o~ r. ba~ NJ, th8 D~pal'tm~n~ w~]] t'equgst applicable ~n all d~ve]opDml]t V~tr~tions illspect~nn. (This is prJmarliy beca~.lse the app]J, cant has ~lot ,~%Ippl!~d photo~raphs of th~ bulkhead, do~s not ide~ttfy It o~] the ~rv~y, ,~nd Bureau ~taff cannot determine Nave th_~ applicant ~apply nUrl,enr photograph~ of the area; ~sP~,~laiiy of th~ ~xi~tJng hul. kh~ad, add nf the ar~a where rh~ docks ar~ to be remc, v~.~ (shown as wetland on t.h,~ ~urv~y- also ~ ~7). Please havre th~ applicant amej~d th~ .~rvey to .~how the 4, and %. Will the applic~ut be able to satisfy the T~dal Wet]ands lO0~ setback wh~ ~atlsfy!ng th~ Freshwater w~tland setback? If i]ot, havre the applicant proper var~a~e r~q~lmm~ to el ther/hot, b agencies. $om~ of P]e~.e have th~ applicant suh~it a ~akJng plan; mat'king flanking FW and TW w~t.]~Dd~: havre tb~ Sanitary peF~m~t~v New York State Department of Environmental Conmerva'flon Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, N~w Yod< 1t790-23E6 Thomem C. Jorllng Commleeloner Al Rav~ the appllc~,nt shc, w~ hntb on ~he plan and ×-.secri~n, ~qrvey ~ubmJ~ted Showg that the ~xJ~tlng docks are ~.~rrounded by tidal w~t]~ds, 1.e. access to th~ anc);~ ~ ~.5' over gradp over t~da~ w~k.!alqds. may propase access tile p!-opoaed B. LAING I SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 225 MAIN STREET, NORTHPORT, NY 11768 516-261-7170 FAX: 516-261-7454 April 3, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: In regards to your memo of April 1, 1992, I will not be able to attend the scoping session for Harbor View Realty due to the rescheduling of a public hearing I must attend in Middletown, New York. I have spoken with Holly from your office and have rescheduled the meeting to April 15, 1992 at 9:30 a.m. Please accept my apologies for any inconveniences this may have caused you or the planning staff. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Michael P. Bontje President JACSAG13/SC HARBOR VIEW 4/1/92 Spoke to Rich at John Raynor's office, the consultants for the project. Set April 8, 1992 at 9:30 A.M. for the scoping session in the conference room at Town Hall in Southold. Mike Bontje of B. Laing Assoc. confirmed this date, but not until March 31, 1992. The memo went to involved agencies on April 1, 1992. On April 3, 1992, at 10:00 A.M. Susan at B. Laing Associates called to say that Mike Bontje will have to cancel the April 8th scoping session and asked if April 15, 1992 could be the new scheduled date. Asked Susan for a letter from Mike Bontje stating that he has to cancel the 8th meeting. 10:15 A.M. checked with Rich at John Raynor's office to see if the April 15th was good for him. He called back and said the 15th was fine. A new memo was sent out scheduling the new date to all involved agencies. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516~ 765 1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOI'r L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: All Involved Agencies Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~.//~ Scoping Session for Harbor View Realty SCTM#1000-53-5-12.5 DATE: April 3, 1992 The Scoping Session that was set for 9:30 A.M., Wednesday, April 8, 1992 has been cancelled. The new meeting has been scheduled for 9:30 A.M., Wednesday, April 15, 1992 in the conference room of the Town Hall which is located on the Main Road in Southold. If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's facsimile number is 765-1823. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. CC: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees Robert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, NYSDEC - Albany William Barton, NYe Dept of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Public Bulletin Board Michael P. Bontje, President, B. Laing Associates PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: All Involved Agencies FROM: RE: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Scoping Session for Harbor View Realty SCTM#1000-53-5-12.5 DATE: April 1, 1992 A Scoping Session has been set for 9:30 A.M., Wednesday, April 8, 1992, for the above mentioned subdivision application. The meeting will be held in the conference room of the Town Hall which is located on the Main Road in Southold. A copy of the Positive Declaration may have been sent to you under separate cover. Another copy is enclosed with this letter for your convenience. If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's facsimile number is 765-1823. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Encl. cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees Robert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NYSDEC - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, NYSDEC - Albany William Barton, NYS Dept of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Public Bulletin Board Michael P. Bontje, President, B. Laing Associates PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone {516) 765-[938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo[d. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance March 16, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the · implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SEQR Status: T!rpel Description of Action Residential clustered subdivision. 10 single family lots on 83.117 acres. Lot sizes range from 55,334 to 106,510 square feet in area. Homeowners Association will own some of the remaining land. The rest of the land is proposed for dedication to the Town, Nature Conservancy or similar organization. Location: Southeast of Main Road Greenport, Town of Southold SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-80 Harbor View Realty Positive Declaration March 16, 1992 Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Form and an Appendix to the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF and the Appendix have been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. Several questions have arisen with respect to the information contained in the LEAF, the Appendix and the accompanying map, that must be clarified. However, the Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that over and above these unanswered questions, there are certain aspects of the project that may significantly effect the environment, and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. The scope of the DEIS is to include, but not be limited to: the environmental impacts of the road construction, the potential adverse effects of the project on the wetlands, the use of the areas slated for docks/moorings, the potential number of boat docks/moorings, and the effects of the project in regard to the area designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516)-765-1938 A Copy of this Notice Sent to: John Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Eobert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept. of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk Public Bulletin Board Michael P. Bontje, President B.Laing Associates PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, .Ir.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone 1516) 765-1-338 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 7654823 March 17, 1992 Richard Van de Kieft John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. P.O. Box 720 Water Mill, New York 11976 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Van de Kieft: Enclosed please find a copy of the actions taken by the Planning Board at the March 16, 1992 public meeting. Staff will be contacting you to schedule the scoping session. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York II971 Fax (516) 765-1823 March 17, 1992 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM$ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: I have enclosed the following for your information: a) A copy of the minutes from the Planning Board's February 24th meeting pertaining to the above mentioned subdivision. b) A copy of the North Fork Environmental Council's letter dated February 21, 1992. c) A copy of a letter from Terry B. Salisbury in reference to the life estate of Charlotte Jurgensen. Encl. Very truly yours, ennett Or±owsKi, Jr. 4~ Chairman [ oute 25 at Lo~,e Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 Ms. Melissa Spiro Southold Planning Department Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: February 21,~C Harborview Landing Subdivision Sage Blvd., Greenport Dear Melissa, A I am writing to you today to ask that the above mentioned project, which is a Type I action, be given a Positive Declaration under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Quite frankly, I don't see how it is possible for you to do otherwise. A conditioned negative declaration cannot be used becausg.this is a Type I action and to issue a negative declaration would be wrong when so many areas of environmental concern associated with the project have been identified. Some of the areas that we are most concerned about are the rare and endangered species that utilize the site. Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State. Additionally, we are concerned about Sage Boulevard. The right-of-way extends through the significant freshwater wetlands which are found in the northerly section of the site. It is proposed that the road be dedicated to the Town of Southold. In order for this to happen the entire roadway, all 3,760 feet, must meet town highway specifications which would mean tripling its current width and adding a drainage system. This means that Some wetlands will be filled in. While we feel that it may be desirable to improve Sage Blvd., we also feel that we should know upfront how many acres of wetlands will be involved and how the drainage system will be built. We feel that improving the road should be the responsibility of the applicant and nut become a burden to the taxpayers at a later date. The third are~ of concern extends to the proposal to Use Sage Basin for boat mooring. The future homeowner's will have access to the water for recreation, docking and moo ' a 1.29 acre site that includes area. The need to also u~ and perhaps eliminated from the plan. u me carefully examined a non-profit o~ganization fo~ Ihe preservation of land, sea, air and qualityof life printed on 100% recycled paper RATCLIFFE AND HITT RICHARD MITT March 23, 1987 Jeffrey D. Forchelli 120 Mineola Blvd. P.O. Box 31 , Mineola, NY 11501 RE: Life estate of Charlotte Greenport, NY Jurgensen in home on Sage Blvd.", Dear Mr. Forchelli: ~ My client, Charlotte Jurgensen, formerly Charlotte Sage, has asked me to write this letter to you regarding t~e:impending sale of the real estate at Sage Blvd., Greenport, New York. She informs me that she retains a life estate in the home located on the property but she cannot locate any copies of deeds or the mortgage showing how title was passed when sold to your group of investors. Please forward a copy of the recorded deed and mortgage from your purchase of the property as well as a notarized letter from you stating that your sale of the property, will not affect her life interest. I have already infqrmed her that if she does in fact own a life estate, subsequent sales will not affect her interests. Withbut seeing a copy of the deed trans.ferir title, I cannot advise her. Your cooperation and assistan~ are appreciated. Very truly yours, Terry B. Salisbury copy: ~ar~otte Jurgensen 7100 South Shore~Dr. S. South Pasadena, FL 33707 ARMAND p D'AMATO JEFFREY D, FORCHELLI JACK L LIBERT DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R. MI}lEO THOMAS J. DUNCAlq P~TER ALPERT ANTON d. BOROVINA RICHARD C. GOLDBERG" STEPHEN GUARNERI THOMAS %'. PANTELI$ ELADIO FIGUEROA, JR. STEVEN LOVE D'AMATO, FOR. CHELLI, LIBERT, ,SCHWARTZ ~ MINEO COUNSELOR5 AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. O, BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 (516) 246- 1700 March 30, 1987 OF COUNSEL JAMESW PAR~S ROBERTA MELILLO Terry B. Salisbury, Esq. Ratcliffe and Hitt, Esqs. 433 Seventy-Sixth Avenue Post Office Box 66095 St. Petersburg Beach, Florida 33736 RE: Life Estate of Charlotte Jurgensen in home on Sage Boulevardt Greenportt New York Dear Mr. Salisbury: .: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 23, 1987 regarding the above. Our contract to the Purchaser. is subject to your client's life estate. At the closing, your cl~qnt's mortgage will be paid in however, the life estate wf like to attend the closing JDF/js full, ~~. ~(~ . .Very truly yc irs,/ SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING DARD 11 FEBRUARY 2~ 1992 Mr. W~rd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolu~ ~ RESOLVED that th? ~6uthold Town Planning Board start the lead agency ~di~n process on this unlisted action.. Mr. Latham: S~. Mr. Orlowski>/ Moti~ made and seconded. Any questions on the motion?.. ~_A .t.hose .i.n .~.vo%? Ayes: ~r. ~.atnam, ~r. war~, / r. McDonald, Mr. Or~owski. /. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Lead Agency Status: Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View Landing - This major subdivision is for ten lots on 83.117 acres located on Sage Boulevard in Greenport. SCTM #1000-53-5-12.5. The Planning Board to review responses to lead agency coordination request and to review information for SEQR determination. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. WHEREAS on September 30, 1991, the Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process subject to receipt of revised maps; and WHEREAS on January 15, 1992, the revised maps were submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS on January 21, 1992, the Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process; and .~, WHEREAS on January 28, 1992, the Planning Board received a response from the Department of Environmental Conservation stating that based upon a review of the information submitted, the proposed action will require permits from the DEC. Due to the fact that the applicant for the project had not made an application to the DEC, that agency asked the Planning Board to defer their decision regarding lead agency determination until the DEC received a formal application; and WHEREAS on February 20, 1992, the Planning Board received a response from the Southold Town Trustees requesting an extension of time for review of the proposed map with respect to wetland issues; SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING DARD 12 FEBRUARY 2~ 1992 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board extend the time frame to determine lead agency status until the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, which is March 16, 1992. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Flynn: Mr. Chairman, do you entertain questions from the floor? Mr. Orlowski: I will. Mr. Flynn: I am a resident of Southold and the owner of abutting property. I would like to inquire as to whether your Planning staff has reviewed this application prior to its submission to the various state agencies? This application is replete with so many falsehoods, so much misinformation and so many misleading statements as to constitute misleading these agencies as to the extent and impact of this project. Now, were I to utilize the current phraseology, I would classify this whole proceeding as a scam. Now, I am prepared here, I have a few notes, I could be here all evening recounting everything that is wrong with this application but I would just like to point out a few of the things that are wrong. ~ I am quite serious about this and I intend to pursue this to the extent permitted by law. The application is completely at odds with the map submitted, initially and as revised. Each contradicts the other. In here, in the application is what is in effect an attempt to trade a negative declaration for land which is absolutely against the law. Now, as I say, I cannot take all evening, but I will give you a few specifics. With respect to the application itself which was submitted in August of 1991, it says that there are no unpaid taxes and no liens against the property. When this was submitted to the state agencies, and I checked this with the Receiver of Taxes, ~here are substantial taxes unpaid on this property and there also have been lis pendens published against this property. Now, it states, the application, not to get into at this moment that so lengthy appendix to the EAF. It states that there are only 11.5 acres of tidal water and that it is part of Southold Bay. Obviously, the 11.5 acres are not part of Southold Bay. They constitute the Sage Estuary. The fresh water ponds and the so called southerly on~ and one half acre marina are absolutely ignored. Now, there is a estimate of the cost of public improvements at $20,000 dollars, now, one of the scams inherent in this entire project intended to mislead anybody who doesn't investigate the matter is that they claim the sole road construction is to be in what they call the southerly part of the property for a length of 1500 feet. Well frankly, they SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING DARD 13 FEBRUARY 2~ 1992 don't even know the points of the compass because it isn't the southerly part of the property, it's the southeasterly part of the property and rather than 1500 feet, what is proposed here on the map in contradiction of the application is 3500 feet or more of road installation, and for this they put down an estimate of $20,000 dollars to cover the installation of a f~fty foot road, the drainage, the paving, the underground electrical service and the water service. This is absolutely false, and I don't know who reviewed this application but it is an'absolute insult to the intelligence of a creatine. Now, as for the EAF. The subdivision of the property states that 57.247 acres will be dedicated to the nature conservancy to be kept for ever wild. The map indicates that this property is to be held by the homeowners association which is an entirely kettle of fish. The homeowners have the right to sell this property and there is no question of dedication to the nature conservancy. Further, in other aspects of this application, they refer to it not as forever wild, but as open space, which is another entirely different definition of property use. The acreage is completely miscalculated and as I said, the directions are such that nobody who is not intimately familiar with the property could understand what they are talking about. Essentially, what they are trying to mislead people into believing, is that this is an application for an improvement of a twenty-two acre parcel. This is an application for the improvement of an eighty-three acre parcel and you cannot ~ consider the impact on twenty-two acres and ignore the impact on the rest of the property. The rest of the property is actually so environmentally sensitive, that the applicant states that it is the habitat of endangered and threatened species and that the Sage Estuary is the feeding ground for these species. Now, what is intended here in the map, but deliberately misstated in the application is to put a fifty foot wide road directly through the wetlands without the required setback from either freshwater wetlands or salt water wetlands. Now this i~ absolutely false and it is an insult as I say to anybody who has any knowledge of planning or can even make a simple calculation. Now, it is stated here that forty percent .~of this property is made land. Anybody who has walked over that property, as I have many times, knows that it is not forty percent made land. This again is a deliberate misstatement. It is possible that forty percent of the a£ea fronting on the bay is made land, but God made the wooded acres, certainly not man. With respect to the property fronting on the bay, it is casually stated that it is forty-nine hundred feet in length. For anybody to have checked this plan, they realize that it is nowhere near forty-nine hundred feet in length, it is approximately, if my memory serves me, seventeen hundred feet in length and were you to have a map made to indicate at a one hundred scale, a property forty-nine hundred feet in length, you would obviously have to have a piece of paper forty-nine inches long and if you just take a glance at the map, you would know SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING DARD 14 FEBRUARY 2 1992 that that is a physical impossibility. So, what I am saying here is, that this is a deliberate effort to mislead everyone as to the impact of this proposed development on the nature of the surrounding area and I suggest, most strongly, that this entire proceeding be started from the on set remapped and made to conform with the application. Now, there is probably a few other things I could mention here but, probably the single most important thing to mention here is that, in my opinion, this is phase 2 of an operation planned by Mr. Bredemeyer to make the entire Sage estuary a public anchorage and inherent in this plan is proof positive of that. There are plans supposedly for eleven slips or moorings. Now, the one and one-half acre southerly marina could easily accommodate fifty to seventy-five boats alone and yet it is maintained that there are only eleven slips required. As a matter of interest, since there are ten houses, why are there eleven slips required. Because it states in the application that one of the slips will not be for a homeowner but will be for someone outside the property and I would very much like to know who it is that is going to have the right to Moore in that area. Finally, perhaps the most egregious misstatement of all, they plan another marina at what they describe as the northerly end of the property in the Sage Estuary and this marina is calculated to be approximately 3.87 acres in area of which a portion is in the upland and about 3 acres in the wetlands. That three acres is stated to be a mooring area, but were you to read the application, it does not say a mooring area, it says, slips-mooring. Based upon many years of experience, I will tell you flatly, that those approximately three acres can accommodate approximately one hundred boats in slips or if you were to calculate the swing radius at a mooring, it would accommodate perhaps forty-five or fifty. This is not intended to be part and parcel of this development what-so-ever, and I underline again, that this is supposedly to be in the ownership of the homeowners association. The homeowners association by right, could sell this off. Not only could they sell it off, but it is obvious that the homeowners with their approximately two acre parcels on the bay frontage are not interested in owning property that remote from them particularly when they are well ..served by the marina that has existed there in relation to the cottages. Now, aS to the widening of the road, that road is a right-of-way, and it is sixteen feet in width. It has served thirty-one cottages for many years. Now all of a suddcn, it is proposed to widen this road to fifty feet and the reason for that, in my opinion, is that it is intended to serve the Brick Cove Marina because, were you to examine the map, you would find that where this road passes the Brick Cove Marina, all of a sudden it widens to approximately eighty feet to create frontage for the Brick Cove Marina which never had frontage on the right-of-way. It is my opinion, that this is the method being used to force the applicant to put this road in there and no consideration was given to his previous SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING 3ARD 15 FEBRUARY 24 1992 plans where it was possible to put in that road across the connecting roads from the adjoining developments which was his primary intent. I will go so far as to say, that I sat in my attorney's office with Mr. Clifford Rudolph and Mr. Clifford Rudolph, at that time said, that he had no intention whataso-ever of widening Sage Blvd. (1) because of its detrimental effect on the environment and (2) because it would certainly increase traffic and would certainly damage his waterfront parcels which were the most valuable portion of the property that he owned. So, I feel, although I can't prove it at the moment, that pressure has been exerted on Mr. Rudolph to su~mit a plan which is in no way in accordance with' the information conveyed to the various state agencies or the information conveyed over a period since 1988 to your own Planning Board and the end result of this is it is proposed to destroy this area which the applicant himself admits is the habitat of endangered species which the state shows fresh water and salt water wetland and the entire bottom of the Cove is salt water tidal water and further the bottom of the Sage Estuary is admitted by the Southold Baymen's Association to be one of the most productive areas of shellfishingo The area is closed during the marina season currently which is a de- facto admission of the pollution emminating from the marina and here this plan, apparently nobody has ever taken the trouble to analyze, would induce another hundred votes into the Sage Estuary. I say this is an afront to intelligence and it is an afront to any planning procedure and it has all the earmarks of a done deal. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Right now, the motion is to extend the time allowed for Lead Agency. Mr. Flynn: The point of the matter is Lead Agency decisioR has to be made by these state agencies who have been deliberately misinformed as to the impact of this property. So what happens in an instance like this? The Lead Agency says, well this isn't a very important thing, there is only $20,000 dollars of improvements going in here etc. etc. and then they ~.release it and permit the Town to adopt Lead Agency status and then it gets into the political arena and that has been the history of this whole situation including the five suits that I have brought against the Trustees and so far have had four favorable decisions. Based upon the same line of reasoning that I am entertaining or expressing here and as I say, I am a man of principal and if this ~hing is not corrected, I shall pursue this to the utmost extreme of the law. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Like I said, right now this is in regards to Lead Agency, if you have those comments and you have them in writing, you can send them to us and to the DEC. We are waiting for the DEC comments and the comments from the Trustees before anything is done with Lead Agency. This is the long form SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING lARD 16 FEBRUARY 24 1992 and I am sure we will have public hearings and plenty of time to address all of those comments but right now this is what the resolution states. Your comments will be entertained. This is not a political arena over here. Mr. Flynn: with all respect, are you telling me that you propose not to correct this misinformation that has been submitted to these state agencies? These state agencies cannot reach a valid conclusion based on what you have conveyed to them as being the environmental assessment form, it's appendix and the application. You would have to have a level playing field here where the state has the facts to work with rather than factious, innamed, incorrect and deliberately misleading statements. Mr. Orlowski: We are both looking at the same document and the state agency has basically said, wait a second, we want to take a closer look. We are allowing them to do that right now. Mr. Flynn: But, there closer look entails examining the documentation that you sent to them. I know that. I have had enough experience in these areas and incidentally some of these misstatements are~Otorized. Consider the impact of that. They work on what you send them, these state agencies, if you send them misinformation then you are involved in submission of incorrect data in a matter concerning the public. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comments? I have a motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr.~rlowski: Thomas Monsell -/This minor subdivision is for three lots ~ ~~ted at the south side of Monsell~ane in Cutchogue. /~CTM ~1000-138-1-2.1, 9.1, 13.1 Mr. McDonald:~Mr. Ch~rmanf I would like to make a motion. ~D .tha~ ~So_uth~o.1d T_own Planning Board, acting under the State Envirop~e~tal Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on MRS_: Moti.on m~ade ~d seconded. Any questions on the moti~ All those in favor? AyeS: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town HalF, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765~1823 March 17, 1992 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1992: Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this Type 1 action. Be it further RESOLVED that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. A copy of the Positive Declaration is enclosed. I have also enclosed, for your information, copies of the comments from other involved agencies and a copy of the report from the Board's environmental consultant. Please contact the Planning Board within two (2) weeks to schedule a scoping session. There will be a review fee for both the scoping session and the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The fee for the scoping session must be submitted in full before the session will be held. Harbor View Realty March 17, 1992 Page 2 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr./ Chairman Encl. cc: John Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Robert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept..of Health Services Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept. of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance March 16, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the · implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. ~ ~ a Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SEQR Status: Typel Description of Action Residential clustered subdivision. 10 single family lots on 83.117 acres. Lot sizes range from 55,334 to 106,510 square feet in area. Homeowners Association will own some of the remaining land. The rest of the land is proposed for dedication to the Town, Nature Conservancy or similar organization. Location: .~' Southeast of Main Road Greenport, Town of Southold SCTM~ 1000-53-5-1~.5 Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-80 Harbor View Realty Positive Declaration March 16, 1992 Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Form and an Appendix to the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF and the Appendix have been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. Several questions have arisen with respect to the information contained in the LEAF, the Appendix and the accompanying map, that must be clarified. However, the Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that over and above these unanswered questions, there are certain aspects of the project that may significantly effect the environment, and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. The scope of the DEIS is to include, but not be limited to: the environmental impacts of the road construction, the potential adverse effects of the project on the wetlands, the use of the areas slated for docks/moorings, the potential number of boat docks/moorings, and the effects of the project in regard to the area designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516)-765-1938 A Copy of this Notice Sent to: John Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Robert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept. of State Joseph J. Seebode~ Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk Public Bulletin Board Michael P. Bontje, President B.Laing Associates TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Hemy P. Smith, Vice President Albert I. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTF L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Trustees Harbor View Realty ~ SCTM $1000-53-5-12.5 March 16, 1992 The Southold Town Trustees wish to offer the following comments with respect to the Appendix to the L.E.A.F. of B. Laing Associates in this matter: 1. Although the L.E.A.F. details the need for a local wetland permit, the introduction fails to identify the need for a tidal wetlands permit under Chapter 97 for all activities within 75' of all wetlands to a depth of 5' below mean low water. 2. The Trustees believe that insufficient information has been presented to properly assess the wetland impact(s), if any, associated with the need to improve the access road North of the Southerly 1,500 feet. Since the degree of road development may be directly affected by the discretionary opinion or judgement of the Planning Board and or other regulatory and safety agencies, the applicant should receive some guidance in this area in establishing levels of potential impact. As it would seem that construction of a road of standard width would entail the alteration of freshwater wetlands, this issues may create a :.pivotal threshold requiring a positive declaration pursuant to SEQRA. The Trustees feel every opportunity should be given the applicant to improve the existing road bed without requiring alteration of freshwater wetlands. 3. As the Trustees actively participated in the state designation of the easterly section of Conklins Point as a significant Coastal F~sh and Wildlife Habitat they request a more detailed account of the plans for community area "H". Given that most lots within the subdivision will afford quality swimming, this impact could be eliminated by dedicating this area for limited use on a timetable created by the regulatory agency with most experience in these matters, the NYSDEC. 4. The Trustees feel that the mooring plans for the northerly most basin, "Sage Basin" should be detailed or eliminated. Elimination of any mooring here would eliminate another potential SEQRA threshold as the Board believes the Southerly basin is large enough to accommodate the boating needs of this subdivision. The Southerly most basin should be laid out to show that it in fact will accommodate a vessel for each lot, if that is what is sought. 5. As this project relies on development closer to the Phragmitic pond on lots 3 and 4 than discussed on pre-submission, this pond should be fully characterized as to depth, soils, Flora, Fauna and water quality. Is this pond vernal? Does it support biological activity which would be impacted by development? Does any impact to the pond relate to the significant Coastal fish and wildlife area? With respect to this issue the Board has authorized its consultant Bruce Anderson to review these issues with a charge back to the developer at the prevailing SEQRA rate should the developer elect. In any case, we would request any report on this be made for our review prior to a SEQRA determination in this matter. 6. The Trustees believe that this is an environmentally responsible project and would suggest that the developer commence linkages with the Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust, Ducks Unlimited or similar conservation entity to help steward the land preservation aspects of this proposal and~allay the fears of the N.F.E.C. and others. We do however believe that the concerns of John Raynor and this Board should be fully addressed, so as to develop a legal basis for any SEQRA determination. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE /¢/pI,'o~/~b,~ ~:F /- ~/ 7 2 ~- - 'z~cx/ Z O / od This letter responds to your communication of , 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: DEC Permits (if any): DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: DEC Position: ~)~ Type I [ ] Unlisted Based on the information provided: DEC 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. Comments: [ ] see attached.. [ ] none If you do not concur with the DEC position indicated above, please contact Partthis office 617. to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under cc: (attach distribution list) Please feel free to contact this office for further inf Sinnerely, . ut' "'T FEB ;~ ~ I~tANNt~I) BOARD GAlL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Town of Southold Planning Boaro Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 12231-0001 February 19, 1992 S-92-010 Lead Agency Status for SEQRA Coordination - Harbor View Landing Subdivision Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letters of January 21, 1992 regarding your request for comments on the designation of the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency under SEQRA for the above-referenced proposals. The Department of State has no objections to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency responsibility for this project. We do, however, have some comments and questions on several items pertaining to the proposed subdivision: 1) The easternmost finger of land (approximately 1.5 acres) is proposed as Homeowner's Association "open space" according to Part "A" of the sketch plan. This finger of land is located within the boundaries of the designated Conkling Point significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Intensive use of this open space should be discouraged in order to minimize impacts to nesting activities of colonial water birds in the area, particularly least terns and piping plovers. 2) Due to the likelihood that existing dock structures will be modified through replacement, repair or reconfiguration, a Corps of Engineers approval for this~in-water work may be necessary. The listing of permitting agencies on page 2 of the report should be revised to reflect this authorization. 3) How will public access along the shoreline of the property be affected by this proposed project? The ownership of underwater lands at this site should be established. An opportunity to enhance or develop public access may be possible via this proposal. This opportunity should be addressed. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. February 19, 1992 Page 2 4) Page 5 of the report states that two commercial fishing vessels used this site prior to purchase by the current owner. Did these displaced vessels relocate to another location? Will this loss of commercial fishing activity be compensated? Will provisions be made to provide continued space at this site for commercial fishing activities? What impacts will the proposed dock modification and use have on State water quality classifications and existing shellfish beds at and near the site? Will all non-point runoff be con=ained on-site? More detailed plans should be prepared showing how this concern will be addressed. 6) Several of the 10 properties shown on sketch plan "A" have building envelopes that are apparently large enough to allow further setback of the proposed residences from Southold Bay. To minimize any effects on the visual quality of the shoreline and water quality in Southold Bay, these residences should be located as far from the waterfront as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call Mike Co~ey at (518) 474-6000 if there are any questions. Sincerely, jWilliam F. B~rton Chief, Project Review Bureau Division of' Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization WFS/rdc ?~,~-'cc: DOS - Mike Corey Peter Walsh 0 John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerlield Green P.O. Box 720 Reports Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Design Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Planning ~:::./er ~. Februaw 14,1992 Bennett Or[owski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: LEAF Review - Harbor View Landing Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to us by the Planning Department and have the following questions and comments: In general, the LEAF provides sufficient information and analysis of the environmental factors which relate to the proposed action, being the elimination of 31 sub-standard seasonal cottages and septic systems, the re-alignment of Sage Boulevard and the creation of 10 single family residential lots. This should lessen on-site environmental impacts and have an overall positive effect. However, there are several questions that need to be answered prior to a SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. General Comments; The LEAF makes a point, used in the various analyses, that the houses will be designed in such a way as to attract "empty nesters". In this way, additional children are limited, which would tend to lessen some impacts, especially the impact to the local school system. Our experience is that while thi2 is a fine concept, it may be difficult to put into practice or to assure the result, cannot be enforced by the Town, and the present developer may not be the ullimate builder. As the lots may become available for sale upon the filing of the subdivision map, this "empty nester" analysis is not recommended. Similarly, the idea that these will be second homes is also invalid for this analysis. Any part of the LEAF which relies on these concepts should be revised. While most of the proposed development takes place in already disturbed areas, the subject parcel lies wilhin an area d.esignated as bolh an 'Area el Intensive Aboriginal Habilar' by he Sulfolk County Archaeologrcal Association and as having Mulliple Silo Sensilivily by NYS. The LEAF discusses lhe issue of the sile's polential archaeological sensitivity in some detail and proposes that "one month prior to roadway construction, the cottage and proposed road bed areas demonstrating higher test recovery of artifacts wilt be thoroughly excavated." The applicants are aware that they will need both Tidal and Freshwater Wetland Permits from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. Recently this agency has been requiring archaeological studies during the permit process. As Lead Agency, the Planning Board may want to consider asking the applicant to prepare an Archaeological Study at this time. We do not recommend allowing for "archaeological excavation prior to construction", unless more information is submitted and both the applicant and the Board agree on a future course of action in the event significant ' adifacts are uncovered. The source of the information which is contained in the report is not mentioned, and should be noted. If an archaeological study has already been done by a qualified firm, it should be submitted in total. Stormwater runoff generated by the proposed proiect is to be collected in catch basins and piped to a series of leaching pools for recharge. Potential ovefllow is to be piped to a "Drainage Pond" which is located about 40' away from a freshwater wetland. Steps should be taken to avoid possible ovedlow with ils attendent siltation & sedimentation, into the wetlands. Also, with such shallow depth to groundwater, will the drainage pond have enough capacity? The LEAF makes no mention of how the debris created by the demolition of 31 cottages, the removal of existing sanitary systems and the re-alignment of Sage Boulevard will be disposed of. In order to avoid disturbance to a pocket of freshwater wetlands, vehicular access to lot 4 is proposed via a r.o.w, that crosses lot 5. However, the proposed drive is located only about 5' from the edge of the wetlands. The Board may wish to explore the possibilily of using the driveway for lot 5 as a common driveway. This would eliminate the need for an additional driveway so close to the wetlands. Similar concerns exist for lots 2 & 3. We note that Sage Boulevard is presently a private road. In the letter from the Police Chief, he states that since this is a private read, in the event of severe storms, etc., "it would not be possible to service the area". The LEAF itself does not indicate whether the road will be offered for dedication to the Town. In the general description of the proiect (p. 1), the report states "The existing roadway would be reconstructed for only its most southerly 1,500 linear feet or 0.90 acres'". On page 5, it further states "This system" (the road) would occupy 0.90 acres and be desinned as a urivate road". However, the Subdivision Sketch Plan (S1, Part "A") contains a note that Sage Blvd. & Sage Court are to be offered for dedication to the Town for highway purposes. The proposed improvement of all pads of Sage Boulevard must be clarilied. The "Hall Road Section" on Sheet S1 shows a 24' wide pavement section with curbing, which would meet Town of Southold standards. It is unclear exactly where this would apply, however we would assume that it would only apply to the realigned section. This leads to a question as to what improvements are proposed, if any, for the remaining portion of the roadway. We do not believe that the westerly section of Sago Boulevard would be acceptable in its present condition (narrow pavement, with many potholes). We strongly recommend that the Planning Board explore this issue wilh the applicants with an eye towards the future use and disposition of Sage Boulevard. Our experience is that whil,.~ private roads are initially perceived as a benefit Io the developer and the future oysters, in the long term a majority of owners on such private roads call for public control and maintenance. When that comes up, a special tax assessment districl is called for to raise the funds needed for the road improvement fo allow it to be accepted into the Town's highway system. We do not believe that the Planning Board can demand that the roads be dedicated to the Town. However, they can require that the road be improved to Town specifications, and in some cases a Conditional Oiler of Dedication has been requested along with an on-going maintenance bond to bring the road up to Town specs if the maintenance is lacking in the future. With these measures in place, a Town Law 200 (Road Improvement Special Tax Assessment District) may be avoided in the future. We would fudher recommend that due to the length of road involved, the Town discuss some narrowing of the pavement width for some portion of the roadway while still providing suitable width for Town acceptance. We would view the public control of this road as a positive impact, noting that it would alleviate another sub-standard condition and allow for full sno,,v removal and improved access for police and other emergency services. Upon reviewing this proposal with the pending application of "Bay View Heights" we find that lhe proposed road alignment for the reconstructed portion of Sage Blvd. is acceptable, witll enough "leeway" to allow lor adjustment by the Planning Board to coordinate the potential road connection. The LEAF states that this property is in a flood zone but not a floodway which would experience velocity storm surges. In order that the future residents receive proper protection in the event of a storm, all houses have to be constructed according to certain standards designed to minimize storm damage. Minimum first floor elevations must be met, and sanita~ systems must be elevated above groundwater. In addition to the flood zone construclion standards and SCDHS regulations, we recommend: a). The profile for the proposed road should be designed with particular sensitivity to the possibility of flooding b). That detailed road plans be submitted showing all grading and fill needed, to analyse the impact on the wetlands. That detailed grading plans be required for alt lots prior to construction showing all proposed grading and fill, sanitary systems, all structures, retaining wails an~l any other proposed site improvement. 9. Various measures are outlined to mitigate potential adverse etfects on wetlands and sudace waters, such as the placement of hay bales along newly disturbed areas during road construction. To assure that such mitigalion measures are carried through to the final approval, the applicant and their consultant such submit a listing to the Planning Board of Such measures and their purpose, so that the Planning Board may incorporate them into any SEQFIA decision and subsequent approvals (hay bales, Iow maintenance vegetation, etc.). 10. It is noted that both of the proposed waterfront homeowners parcels (A & I), which are slated for common area / recreation use have wetlands along the water. The impacts of any proposed use of either parcel must be identified. [t is not enough to say that there are no plates for facilities on these parcels. In addition, tho total number of moorings, docks and piers should be clarified. It appears that the numbers el boats to be docked would be reduced by 2~. but the additional dock spaces is not clear. 11. On page 56, the LEAF folks about a 75' wide wetland buffer along Southord Bay, an additional bullet where none currently exists. Only Iow maintenance vegetation is to be allowed. It should be noted that the area along the bay on most of the lots is bulkheaded, and not wellands. Therefore, the value as a wetland buffer area is questionable. 12. The access to the small triangular beach area, designated as "Homeowner's Association Pamel H" (next to lot 10) has only a five foot wide access strip. Under normal conditions, we would not recommend an access width of less than ten feet. In this case, the area along the property line is vegetated. Therefore, we recommend a narrowing of access strips for Lots nine and ten to aIIow for a 15 foot wide strip to the HCA parcel. 13. Homeowners Association Parcel "F" is 8.715 acres of Underwater Land. The sketch plan provides no upland access to the parcel. The intended use of the parcel is unclear. Is it possible for this parcel to be sold by the HCA to an adjacent properly owner who may be interested in constructing or expanding a marina facility? Since it is adjacent to HCA Parcel 'T', we would recommend that it be approved as one parcel unless the applicant presents some compelling reason otherwise. Misc. Comments: The areas shown on the proposed "Subdivision Sketch Plan" do not add up to either the Total Area shown in the Site Data Table or that mentioned in the LEAF. (83.409 acres vs 83.117 acres) The LEAF notes lhat 57.247 acres of the site will be left as "Open Space". The sketch plan denotes three parcels, Home Owners Association Parcels "B", "D" and "G", as being open space. The total of these parcels is 46.734 acres. All but one of the remaining HCA Parcels are to be used either for recreational purposes or ihe proposed re-aligned Sage Boulevard. If indeed only 46.734 acres of the site is to be left in Open Space, the LEAF should be.revised. The LEAF states on page one that the subdivision is limited to 21.1 acres. On page fhree the document states that development would occur on 22.0 acres. According to a statement on page 6, the residential area is 22.1 acres. Addition of the lot areas (16.25 acres), the right-of- way (4.5 acres) and the drainage area (1.9 acres) results in a total of 22.65 acres. The LEAF should be revised to reflect the actual total Aisc, should the areas of the HCA parcels that will be retained for recreational purposes / boat moorings be included in this figure? The LEAF states that there are several areas to be deeded to the Town as permanent open space, and the map contains a note that HCA parcels B, D & G are offered to the Town. The notation that these are HCA parcels is somewhat misleading. I hope this information is of value to you in your SEQRA review. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Richard Van do Kieft PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latharn, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARR1S Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York II971 Fax (516) 765-1823 March 17, 1992 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM9 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1992: Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this Type 1 action. Be it further RESOLVED that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. A copy of the Positive Declaration is enclosed. I have also enclosed, for your information, copies of the co~ents from other involved agencies and a copy of the report from the Board's environmental consultant. Please contact the Planning Board within two (2) weeks to schedule a scoping session. There will be a review fee for both the scoping session and the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The fee for the scoping session must be submitted in full before the session will be held. Harbor View Realty March 17, 1992 Page 2 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr.! ~ Chairman Encl. cc: John Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Robert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept. of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone {516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOWl' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance March 16, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the · implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SEQR Status: Tlrpel Description of Action Residential clustered subdivision. 10 single family lots on 83.117 acres. Lot sizes range from 55,334 to 106,510 square feet in area. Homeowners Association will own some of the remaining land. The rest of the land is proposed for dedication to the Town, Nature Conservancy or similar organization. Location: Southeast of Main Road Greenport, Town of Southold SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Zoning District: Low-Density Residential R-80 Harbor View Realty Positive Declaration March 16, 1992 Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Form and an Appendix to the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The LEAF and the Appendix have been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies. Several questions have arisen with respect to the information contained in the LEAF, the Appendix and the accompanying map, that must be clarified. However, the Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that over and above these unanswered questions, there are certain aspects of the project that may significantly effect the environment, and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. The scope of the DEIS is to include, but not be limited to: the environmental impacts of the road construction, the potential adverse effects of the project on the wetlands, the use of the areas slated for docks/moorings, the potential number of boat docks/moorings, and the effects of the project in regard to the area designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516)-765-1938 A Copy of this Notice Sent to: John Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Robert DeLuca, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C - Stony Brook Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept. of State Joseph J. Seebode, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers James Monsell, Greenport Utilities Judith Terry, Southold Town Clerk Public Bulletin Board Michael P. Bontje, President B.Laing Associates TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert I. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Trustees Harbor View Realty ~ SCTM #1000-53-5-12.5 March 16, 1992 SUPERVISOR SCOTt L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 The Southold Town Trustees wish to offer the following comments with respect to the Appendix to the L.E.A.F. of B. Laing Associates in this matter: 1. Although the L.E.A.F. details the need for a local wetland permit, the introduction fails to identify the need for a tidal wetlands permit under Chapter 97 for all activities within 75' of all wetlands to a depth of 5' below mean low water. 2. The Trustees believe that insufficient information has been presented to properly assess the wetland impact(s), if any, associated with the need to improve the access road North of the Southerly 1,500 feet. Since the degree of road development may be directly affected by the discretionary opinion or judgement of the Planning Board and or other regulatory and safety agencies, the applicant should receive some guidance in this area in establishing levels of potential impact. As it would seem that construction of a road of standard width would entail the alteration of freshwater wetlands, this issues may create a ..pivotal threshold requiring a positive declaration pursuant to SEQRA. The Trustees feel every opportunity should be given the applicant to improve the existing road bed without requiring alteration of freshwater wetlands. 3. As the Trustees actively participated in the state designation of the easterly section of Conklins Point as a significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat they request a more detailed account of the plans for community area "H". Given that most lots within the subdivision will afford quality swimming, this impact could be eliminated by dedicating this area for limited use on a timetable created by the regulatory agency with most experience in these matters, the NYSDEC. 4. The Trustees feel that the mooring plans for the northerly most basin, "Sage Basin" should be detailed or eliminated. Elimination of any mooring here would eliminate another potential SEQRA threshold as the Board believes the Southerly basin is large enough to accommodate the boating needs of this subdivision. The Southerly most basin should be laid out to show that it in fact will accommodate a vessel for each lot, if that is what is sought. 5. As this project relies on development closer to the Phragmitic pond on lots 3 and 4 than discussed on pre-submission, this pond should be fully characterized as to depth, soils, Flora, Fauna and water quality. Is this pond vernal? Does it support biological activity which would be impacted by development? Does any impact to the pond relate to the significant Coastal fish and wildlife area? With respect to this issue the Board has authorized its consultant Bruce Anderson to review these issues with a charge back to the developer at the prevailing SEQRA rate should the developer elect. In any case, we would request any report on this be made for our review prior to a SEQRA determination in this matter. 6. The Trustees believe that this is an environmentally responsible project and would suggest that the developer commence linkages with the Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust, Ducks Unlimited or similar conservation entity to help steward the land preservation aspects of this proposal and.allay the fears of the N.F.E.C. and others. We do however believe that the concerns of John Raynor and this Board should be fully addressed, so as to develop a legal basis for any SEQRA determination. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation P.o. ~o~ /,7~ 5 o ~.~Y"n.-, o ; d /0-9'. /lq-Il Dear It{c,. ~SP', cO/ Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE ,,q?tgh~.a~,~ 55= /- q7~, ,Y' - '~c~/70//od This letter responds to your communication of , 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: DEC Permits (if any): DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: DEC Position: Type I [ ] Unlisted Based on the information provided: DEC has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ' £ [ Comments: [ ] 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. ] see attached [ ] none 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. ' cc: (attach distribution list) Please feel free to contact this office for further inf Sin~2erely, (JUl I~U~N N{~l~ BOARD GAlL S. SHAFfEI~ SEcI~etAF!¥ OF STate Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Town of Southold Planning Boar~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBaNY. N.Y. 12231-O001 February 19, 1992 S-92-010 Lead Agency Status for SEQRA Coordination - Harbor View Landing Subdivision Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letters of January 21, 1992 regarding your request for comments on the designation of the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency under SEQRA for the above-referenced proposals. The Department of State has no objections to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency responsibility for this project. We do, however, have some comments and questions on several items pertaining to the proposed subdivision: The easternmost finger of land (approximately 1.5 acres) is proposed as Homeowner's Association "open space" according to Part "A" of the sketch plan. This finger of land is located within the boundaries of the designated Conkling Point significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Intensive use of this open space should be discouraged in order to minimize impacts to nesting activities of colonial water birds in the area, particularly least terns and piping plovers. 2) Due to the likelihood that existing dock structures will be modified through replacement, repair or reconfiguration, a Corps of Engineers approval for this ~n-water work may be necessary. The listiN~ of permitting agencies on page 2 of the report should be revised to reflect this authorization. 3) How will public access along the shoreline of the property be affected by this proposed project? The ownership of underwater lands at this site should be established. An opportunity to enhance or develop ~blic access may be possible via this proposal. This opportunity should be addressed. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. February 19, 1992 Page 2 4) Page 5 of the report states that two commercial fishing vessels used this site prior to purchase by the current owner. Did these displaced vessels relocate to another location? Will this loss of commercial fishing activity be compensated? Will provisions be made to provide continued space at this site for commercial fishing activities? What impacts will the proposed dock modification and use have on State water quality classifications and existing shellfish beds at and near the site? Will all non-point runoff be contained on-site? More detailed plans should be prepared showing how this concern will be addressed. 6) Several of the 10 properties shown on sketch plan "A" have building envelopes that are apparently large enough to allow further setback of the proposed residences from Southold Bay. To minimize any effects on the visual quality of the shoreline and water quality in Southold Bay, these residences should be locatsd as far from the waterfront as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call Mike Cor'ey at (518) 474-6000 if there are any questions. ~W'lliam F. B~rton Chief, Project Review Bureau Division of'Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization WFB/rdc DOS - Mike Corey Peter Waish Reports Design Environmental Planning John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deedield Green P.O. Box 720 Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Phone: (516) 726-7600 February 14, 1992 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: LEAF Review - Harbor View Landing Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to us by the Planning Department and have the following questions and comments: In general, the LEAF provides sufficient information and analysis of the environmental lactors which relate to the proposed action, being the elimination of 31 sub-standard seasonal cottages and septic systems, the re-alignment of Sage Boulevard and the creation of 10 single family residential lots. This should lessen on-site environmental impacts and have an overall positive elfect. However, there are several questions that need to be answered prior to a SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. General Comment~; The LEAF makes a point, used in the various analyses, that the houses will be designed in such a way as to attract "empty nesters". In this way, additional children are limited, which would tend to lessen some impacts, especially the impact to the local school system. Our experience is that while this is a fine concept, it may be difficult to put into practice or to assure the result, cannot be enforced by the Town, and the present developer may not be the ultimate build~;r. As the lots may become available for sale upon the filing of the subdivision map, this '"empty nester" analysis is not recommended. Similarly, the idea that these will be second homes is also invalid for this analysis. Any pad of the LEAF which relies on these concepts should be revised. While most of the proposed development takes place in already disturbed areas, the subject parcel lies within an area designated as both an "Area ct Intensive Aboriginal Habitat" by the Suffolk County Archaeological Association and as having Mulliple Si o Sensitivit b N~'S y ¥ The LEAF discusses the issue of the site's potential archaeological sensitivity in some ~letail and proposes that "one month prior to roadway construction, the cottage and proposed road bed Odowski, Jr. ~ -2- Fdd~y,_ (~'~ u~r~r7~. ~4. 1,~92 areas demonstrating higher test recovery of artifacts will be thoroughly excavated." The applicants are aware that they will need both Tidal and Freshwater Wetland Permits from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. Recently this agency has been requiring archaeological studies during the permit process. As Lead Agency, the Planning Board may want to consider asking the applicant to prepare an Archaeological Study at this time. We do not recommend allowing for "archaeological excavation prior to construction", unless more information is submitted and both the applicant and the Board agree on a future course of action in the event significant artifacts are uncovered. The source of the information which is contained in the report is not mentioned, and should be noted. If an archaeological study has already been done by a qualified firm, it should be submitted in total. Stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project is to be collected in catch basins and piped to a series of leaching pools for recharge. Potential ovedlow is to be piped to a "Drainage Pond" which is located about 40' away from a freshwater wetland. Steps should be taken to avoid possible ovedlow with its attendent siltation & sedimentation, into the wetlands. Also, with such shallow depth to groundwater, will the drainage pond have enough capacity? The LEAF makes no mention of how the debris created by the demolition of 31 cottages, the removal of existing sanitary systems and the re-alignment of Sage Boulevard will be disposed of. In order to avoid disturbance to a pocket of freshwater wetlands, vehicular access to lot 4 is proposed via a r.o.w, that crosses lot 5. However, the proposed drive is located only about 5' from the edge of the wetlands. The Board may wish to explore the possibility of using the driveway for lot 5 as a common driveway. This would eliminate the need for an additional driveway so close to the wetlands. Similar concerns exist for lots 2 & 3. We note that Sage Boulevard is presently a private road. In the letter from the Police Chief, he states that since this is a private road, in the event of severe storms, etc., "it would not be possible to service the area". The LEAF itself does not indicate whether the road will be offered for dedication to the Town. In the general description of the project (p. 1), the report states "The existing roadway would be reconstructed for only its most southerly 1,500 linear feet or 0.90 acres". On page 5, it further states "This system" (the road) would occupy 0.90 acres and be desioned as a orivate road". However, the Subdivision Sketch Plan (S1, Part "A") contains a note that Sage Blvd. & Sage Court are to be offered for dedication to the Town for highway purposes. The proposed improvement of all pads of Sage Boulevard must be clarified. The "Half Road Section" on Sheet Sl shows a 24' wide pavement section with curbing, which would meet Town of Southold standards. It is unclear exactly where this would apply, however we would assume that it would only apply to the realigned section. This leads to a question as to what improvements are proposed, if any, for the remaining portion of the roadway. We do nol believe that the westerly section of Sage Boulevard would be acceptable in its present condition (narrow pavement, with many potholes). We strongly recommend that the Planning Board explore this issue with the applicants with an eye towards the future use and disposition of Sage Boulevard. Our experience is that while private roads are initially perceived as a benetit to the developer and the future owners, in the long term a majority of owners on such private roads call for public control and maintenance. When that comes up, a special tax assessment district is called for to raise the funds needed for the road improvement to allow it to be accepted into the Town's highway system. -3- We do not believe that the Planning Board can demand that the roads be dedicated to the Town. However, they can require that the road be improved to Town specifications, and in some cases a Conditional Oiler of Dedication has been requested along with an on-going maintenance bond to bdng the road up to Town specs if the maintenance is lacking in the future. With these measures in place, a Town Law 200 (Road Improvement Special Tax Assessment District) may be avoided in the future. We would further recommend that due to the length of road involved, the Town discuss some narrowing of the pavement width for some portion of the roadway while still providing suitable width for Town acceptance. We would view the public control of this road as a positive impact, noting that it would alleviate another sub-standard condition and allow for full snow removal and improved access for police and other emergency services. Upon reviewing this proposal with the pending application of "Bay View Heights" we find that the proposed road alignment for the reconstructed porlion of Sage Blvd. is acceptable, with enough "leeway" to allow for adjustment by the Planning Board to coordinate the potential road connection. The LEAF states that this properly is in a flood zone but not a floodway which would experience velocity storm surges. In order that the future residents receive proper protection in the event of a storm, all houses have to be constructed according to cedain standards designed to minimize storm damage. Minimum first floor elevations must be met, and sanitary systems must be elevated above groundwater. In addition to the flood zone construction standards and SCDHS regulations, we recommend: a). The profile for the proposed road should be designed with padicular sensitivity to the possibility of flooding b). That detailed road plans be submitted showing all grading and till needed, to analyse the impact on the wetlands. c). That detailed grading plans be required for all lots prior to construction showing all proposed grading and fill, sanitary systems, all structures, retaining wails and any other proposed site improvement. 9. Various measures are outlined to mitigate potential adverse effects on wetlands and surface waters, such as the placement of hay bales along newly disturbed areas during road construction. To assure that such mitigation measures are carried through to the final approval, lhe applicant and their consultant such submit a listing to the Planning Board of such measures and their purpose~ so that the Planning Board may incorporate them into any SEQRA decision and subsequent approvals (hay bales, Iow maintenance vegetation, etc.). 10. If is noted that both of the proposed watedront homeowners parcels (A & I), which are slated for common area / recreation use have wetlands along the water. The impacts of any proposed use of either parcel must be idenlified. It is not enough to say that there are no plans for facilities on these parcels. In addition, the total number of moorings, docks and piers should be clarified. It appears that the numbers ct boats lo be docked would be reduced by 2, but the additional dock spaces is not clear. 11. On page 56, the LEAF lalks about a 7:~ w~de wetland buffer along Southold Bay, an additional buffer where none currently exists. Only Iow maintenance vegetation is to be allowed. It should be noted that the area along the bay on most of the lois is bulkheaded, and not wetlands. -4- 14, Therefore, the value as a wetland buffer area is questionable. 12. The access to the small triangular beach area, designated as "Homeowner's Association Parcel H" (next to lot 10) has only a five foot wide access strip. Under normal conditions, we would not recommend an access width of less than ten feet. In this case, the area along the property line is vegetated. Therefore, we recommend a narrowing of access strips for Lots nine and ten to allow for a 15 foot wide strip to the HOA parcel. 13. Homeowners Association Parcel "F" is 8.715 acres of Underwater Land. The sketch plan provides no upland access to the parcel. The intended use of the parcel is unclear. Is it possible for this parcel to be sold by the HOA to an adjacent property owner who may be interested in constructing or expanding a marina facility? Since it is adjacent to HQA Parcel "1", we would recommend that it be approved as one parcel unless the applicant presents some compelling reason otherwise. Misc. Comment~;; The areas shown on the proposed "Subdivision Sketch Plan" do not add up to either the Total Area shown in the Site Data Table or that mentioned in the LEAF. (83.409 acres vs 83.117 acres) The LEAF notes that 57.247 acres of the site will be left as "Open Space". The sketch plan denotes three parcels, Home Owners Association Parcels "B", "D" and "G", as being open space. The total of these parcels is 46.734 acres. All but one of the remaining HOA Parcels are to be used either for recreational purposes or the proposed re-aligned Sage Boulevard. If indeed only 46.734 acres of the site is to be left in Open Space, the LEAF should be revised. The LEAF states on page one that the subdivision is limited to 21.1 acres. On page three the document states that development would occur on 22.0 acres. According to a statement on page 6, the residential area is 22.1 acres. Addition of the lot areas (16.25 acres), the right-of- way (4.5 acres) and the drainage area (1.9 acres) resulfs in a total of 22.65 acres. The LEAF should be revised to reflect the actual total. Also, should the areas of the HOA parceJs that will be retained for recreational purposes / boat moorings be included in this figure? The LEAF states that there are several areas to be deeded to the Town as permanent open space, and the map contains a note that HOA parcels B, D & G are offered to the Town. The notation that these are HOA parcels is somewhat misleading. I hope this information is of value to you in your SEQRA review. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Richard Van de Kieft PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Tclephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 March 17, 1992 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: I have enclosed the following for your information: a) A copy of the minutes from the Planning Board's February 24th meeting pertaining to the above mentioned subdivision. b) c) A copy Of-the North Fork Environmental Council's letter dated February 21, 1992. A copy of a letter from Terry B. Salisbury in reference to the life estate of Charlotte Jurgensen. Very truly yours, cB~an~remtatnOrlowski, Jr. Encl. February Ms. Melissa Spiro Southold Planning Department Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: 21 ,~~ Harborview Landing Subdivision ~! Sage Blvd., Greenport Dear Melissa, I am writing to you today to ask that the above mentioned project, which is a Type I action, be given a Positive Declaration under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Quite frankly, don't see how it is possible for you to do otherwise. A conditioned negative declaration cannot be used because.this is a Type I action and to issue a negative declaration woul'd be wrong when so many areas of environmental concern associated with the project have been identified. Some of the areas that we are most concerned about are the rare and endangered species that utilize the site. Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State. Additionally, we are concerned about Sage Boulevard. The right-of-way extends through the significant freshwater wetlands which are found in the northerly section of the site. It is proposed that the road be dedicated to the Town of Southold. In order for this to happen the entire roadway, all 3,760 feet, must meet town highway specifications which would mean tripling its current width and adding a drainage system. This means that Some wetlands will be filled in. While we feel that it may be desirable to improve Sage Blvd., we also feel that we should know upfront how many acres of wetlands will be involved and how the drainage system will be built. We feel that improving the road should be the responsibility of the applicant and not become a burden to the taxpayers at a later date. The third area of concern extends to the proposal to Use Sage Basin for boat mooring. The future homeowner's will have access to the Water for recreation, docking and mooring from Area D which is a 1.29 acre site that includes an already disturbed bulkheaded area. The need to also use Sage Cove should be carefully examined and perhaps eliminated from the plan. a non-proilt organization for Ihe preservation o! land, sea, air and quality o( life printed on 100% recycled paper RATCLII~F'E AND HITT March 23, 1987 Jeffrey D. Forchelli 120 Mineola Blvd. P.O. Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 RE: Life estate of Charlotte Jurgensen in home Greenport, NY on Sage Blvd.', Dear Mr. Forchelll: : My client, Charlotte Jurgensen, formerly Charlotte Sage, has asked me to write this letter to you regarding t~e:impending sale of the real estate at Sage Blvd., Greenport, New York. She informs me that she retains a life estate in the home located on the property but she cannot locate any copies of deeds or the mortgage showing how title was passed when sold to your group of investors. Please forward a copy of the recorded deed and mortgage from your purchase of the property as well as a notarized letter from you stating that your sale of the propertywill not affect her life interest. I have already infqrmed her that if she does in fact own a life estate, subsequent sales will not affect her interests. Withbut seeing a copy of the deed trans.ferin~ title, I cannot advise her. Your cooperation and assistan~,e are appreciated. Very truly yours, , ~ Terry B. Sal.isbury · copy: ~arlotte~"~ ' ~ Jurgen~en 7100 South Shore Dr. S. South Pasadena, FL 33707 ARM^ND p D'AM^TO ,JEFFREYD FORCHELLI ,JACK L LIBE~T DONALD JAY ~CH~AKTZ PETER K, MI~EO D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ ~ MINEO COUNSELOR5 Al' LAY/ March 30, 1987 OF COUNSEL J^ME5 V/ pARI~S ROBERT A. UELILLO Terry B. Salisbury, Esq. Ratcliffe and Hitt, Esqs. 433 Seventy-Sixth Avenue Post Office Box 66095 St. Petersburg Beach, Florida 33736 Life Estate of Charlotte Jurgensen in home on Sa~e Boulevardt Greenport, New York Dear Mr. Salisbury: . I am in receipt of your letter dated March 23, 1987 regarding ' the above. Our contract to the Purchaser.is subject to your client's life estate. At the closing, your cl~ant's mortgage will however, the life estate w~ like to attend the closing JDr/js be paid in full, continue. In thee.vent you .would will keep you adv.~d regard-ng it. ~~. ~.~ . .Very truly yo~rs,//I SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING~ARD 11 FEBRUARY 2~ 1992 Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this unlisted action. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. motion? Ail those in favor? Any questions on the Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Lead Agency Status: Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View Landinq - This major subdivision is for ten lots on 83.117 acres located on Sage Boulevard in Greenport. SCTM 91000-53-5-12.5. The Planning Board to review responses to lead agency coordination request and to review information for SEQR determination. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following motion. WHEREAS on September 30, 1991, the Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process subject to receipt of revised maps; and WHEREAS on January 15, 1992, the revised maps were submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS on January 21, 1992, the Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process; and WHEREAS on January 28, 1992, the Planning Board received a response from the 'Department of Environmental Conservation stating that based upon a review of the information submitted, the proposed action will require permits from the DEC. Due to the fact that the applicant for the project had not made an application to the DEC, that agency asked the Planning Board to defer their decision regarding lead agency determination until the DEC received a formal application; and WHEREAS on February 20, 1992, the Planning Board receiued a response from the Southold Town Trustees requesting an extension of time for review of the proposed map with respect to wetland issues; SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNIN~OARD 12 FEBRUARY 1992 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board extend the time frame to determine lead agency status until the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, which is March 16, 1992. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Flynn: Mr. Chairman, do you entertain questions from the floor? Mr. Orlowski: I will. Mr. Flynn: I am a resident of Southold and the owner of abutting property. I would like to inquire as to whether your Planning staff has reviewed this application prior to its submission to the various state agencies? This application is replete with so many falsehoods, so much misinformation and so many misleading statements as to constitute misleading these agencies as to the extent and impact of this project. Now, were I to utilize the current phraseology, I would classify this whole proceeding as a scam. Now, I am prepared here, I have a few notes, I could be here all evening recounting everything that is wrong with this application but I would just like to point out a few of the things that are wrong. I am quite serious about this and I intend to pursue this to the extent permitted by law. The application is completely at odds with the map submitted, initially and as revised. Each contradicts the other. In here, in the application is what is in effect an attempt to trade a negative declaration for land which is absolutely against the law. Now, as I say, I cannot take all evening, but I will give you a few specifics. With respect to the application itself which was submitted in August of 1991, it says that there are no unpaid taxes and no liens against the property. When this was submitted to the state agencies, and I checked this with the Receiver of Taxes, there are substantial taxes unpaid on this property and there also have been lis pendens published against this property. Now, it states, the application, not to get into at this moment that so lengthy appendix to the EAF. It states that there are only 11.5 acres of tidal water and that it is part of Southold Bay. Obviously, the 11.5 acres are not part of Southold Bay. They constitute the Sag.e Estuary. The fresh water ponds and the so called southerly one and one half acre marina are absolutely ignored. Now, there is a estimate of the cost of public improvements at $20,000 dollars, now, one of the scams inherent in this entire project intended to mislead anybody who doesn't investigate the matter is that they claim the sole road construction is to be in what they call the southerly part of the property for a length of 1500 feet. Well frankly, they SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING~ARD 13 FEBRUARY 2~ 1992 don't even know the points of the compass because it isn't the southerly part of the property, it's the southeasterly part of the property and rather than 1500 feet, what is proposed here on the map in contradiction of the application is 3500 feet or more of road installation, and for this they put down an estimate of $20,000 dollars to cover the installation of a fifty foot road, the drainage, the paving, the underground electrical service and the water service. This is absolutely false, and I don't know who reviewed this application but it is an absolute insult to the intelligence of a creatine. Now, as for the EAF. The subdivision of the property states that 57.247 acres will be dedicated to the nature conservancy to be kept for ever wild. The map indicates that this property is to be held by the homeowners association which is an entirely kettle of fish. The homeowners have the right to sell this property and there is no question of dedication to the nature conservancy. Further, in other aspects of this application, they refer to it not as forever wild, but as open space, which is another entirely different definition of property use. The acreage is completely miscalculated and as I said, the directions are such that nobody who is not intimately familiar with the property could understand what they are talking about. Essentially, what they are trying to mislead people into believing, is that this is an application for an improvement of a twenty-two acre parcel. This is an application for the improvement of an eighty-three acre parcel and you cannot consider the impact on twenty-two acres and ignore the impact on the rest of the property. The rest of the property is actually so environmentally sensitive, that the applicant states that it is the habitat of endangered and threatened species and that the Sage Estuary is the feeding ground for these species. Now, what is intended here in the map, but deliberately misstated in the application is to put a fifty foot wide road directly through the wetlands without the required setback from either freshwater wetlands or salt water wetlands. Now this is absolutely false and it is an insult as I say to anybody who has any knowledge of planning or can even make a simple calculation. Now, it is stated here that forty percent of this property is made land. Anybody who has walked over that property, as I have many times, knows that it is not forty percent made land. This again is a deliberate misstatement. It is possible that forty percent of the a~ea fronting on the bay .is made land, but God made the wooded acres, certainly not man. With respect to the property fronting on the bay, it is casually stated that it is forty-nine hundred feet in length. For anybody to have checked this plan, they realize that it is nowhere near forty-nine hundred feet in length, it is approximately, if my memory serves me, seventeen hundred feet in length and were you to have a map made to indicate at a one hundred scale, a property forty-nine hundred feet in length, you would obviously have to have a piece of paper forty-nine inches long and if you just take a glance at the map, you would know SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNIN~ARD 14 FEBRUARY 1992 that that is a physical impossibility. So, what I am saying here is, that this is a deliberate effort to mislead everyone as to the impact of this proposed development on the nature of the surrounding area and I suggest, most strongly, that this entire proceeding be started from the on set remapped and made to conform with the application. Now, there is probably a few other things I could mention here but, probably the single most important thing to mention here is that, in my opinion, this is phase 2 of an operation planned by Mr. Bredemeyer to make the entire Sage estuary a public anchorage and inherent in this plan is proof positive of that. There are plans supposedly for eleven slips or moorings. Now, the one and one-half acre southerly marina could easily accommodate fifty to seventy-five boats alone and yet it is maintained that there are only eleven slips required. As a matter of interest, since there are ten houses, why are there eleven slips required. Because it states in the application that one of the slips will not be for a homeowner but will be for someone outside the property and I would very much like to know who it is that is going to have the right to Moore in that area. Finally, perhaps the most egregious misstatement of all, they plan another marina at what they describe as the northerly end of the property in the Sage Estuary and this marina is calculated to be approximately 3.87 acres in area of which a portion is in the upland and about 3 acres in the wetlands. That three acres is stated to be a mooring area, but were you to read the application, it does not say a mooring area, it says, slips-mooring. Based upon many years of experience, I will tell you flatly, that those approximately three acres can accommodate approximately one hundred boats in slips or if you were to calculate the swing radius at a mooring, it would accommodate perhaps forty-five or fifty. This is not intended to be part and parcel of this development what-so-ever, and I underline again, that this is supposedly to be in the ownership of the homeowners association. The homeowners association by right, could sell this off. Not only could they sell it off, but it is obvious that the homeowners with their approximately two acre parcels on the bay frontage are not interested in owning property that remote from them particularly when they are well served by the marina that has existed there in relation to the cottages. Now, as to the widening of the road, that road is a right-of-way, and it is sixteen feet in width. It has served thirty-one cottages for many years. Now all of a sudden, it is proposed to widen this road to fifty feet and the reason for that, in my opinion, is that it is intended to serve the Brick Cove Marina because, were you to examine the map, you would find that where this road passes the Brick Cove Marina, all of a sudden it widens to approximately eighty feet to create frontage for the Brick Cove Marina which never had frontage on the right-of-way. It is my opinion, that this is the method being used to force the applicant to put this road in there and no consideration was given to his previous plans where it was possible to put in that road across the connecting roads from the adjoining developments which was his primary intent. I will go so far as to say, that I sat in my attorney's office with Mr. Clifford Rudolph and Mr. Clifford Rudolph, at that time said, that he had no intention what-so-ever of widening Sage Blvd. (1) because of its detrimental effect on the environment and (2) because it would certainly increase traffic and would certainly damage his waterfront parcels which were the most valuable portion of the property that he owned. So, I feel, although I can't prove it at the moment, that pressure has been exerted on Mr. Rudolph to submit a plan which is in no way in accordance with the information conveyed to the various state agencies or the information conveyed over a period since 1988 to your own Planning Board and the end result of this is it is proposed to destroy this area which the applicant himself admits is the habitat of endangered species which the state shows fresh water and salt water wetland and the entire bottom of the Cove is salt water tidal water and further the bottom of the Sage Estuary is admitted by the Southold Baymen's Association to be one of the most productive areas of shellfishing. The area is closed during the marina season currently which is a de- facto admission of the pollution emminating from the marina and here this plan, apparently nobody has ever taken the trouble to analyze, would induce another hundred votes into the Sage ~. Estuary. I say this is an afront to intelligence and it is an afront to any planning procedure and it has all the earmarks of a done deal. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Right now, the motion is to extend the time allowed for Lead Agency. Mr. Flynn: The point of the matter is Lead Agency decision has to be made by these state agencies who have been deliberately misinformed as to the impact of this property. So what happens in an instance like this? The Lead Agency says, well this isn't a very important thing, there is only $20,000 dollars of improvements going in here etc. etc. and then they release it and permit the Town to adopt Lead Agency status and then it gets into the political arena and that has been the history of this whole situation including the five suits that I have brought against the Trustees and so far have had four favorable decisions. Based upon the same line of reasoning that I am entertaining or expressing here and as I say, I am a man of principal and if this thing is not corrected, I shall pursue this to the utmost extreme of the law. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Like I said, right now this is in regards to Lead Agency, if you have those comments and you have them in writing, you can send them to us and to the DEC. We are waiting for the DEC comments and the comments from the Trustees before anything is done with Lead Agency. This is the long form SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNIN~OARD 16 FEBRUARY 1992 and I am sure we will have public hearings and plenty of time to address all of those comments but right now this is what the resolution states. Your comments will be entertained. This is not a political arena over here. Mr. Flynn: With all respect, are you telling me that you propose not to correct this misinformation that has been submitted to these state agencies? These state agencies cannot reach a valid conclusion based on what you have conveyed to them as being the environmental assessment form, it's appendix and the application. You would have to have a level playing field here where the state has the facts to work with rather than factious, innamed, incorrect and deliberately misleading statements. Mr. Orlowski: We are both looking at the same document and the state agency has basically said, wait a second, we want to take a closer look. We are allowing them to do that right now. Mr. Flynn: But, there closer look entails examining the documentation that you sent to them. I know that. I have had enough experience in these areas and incidentally some of these misstatements are motorized. Consider the impact of that. They work on what you send them, these state agencies, if you send them misinformation then you are involved in submission of incorrect data in a matter concerning the public. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any comments? I have a motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ortowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Thomas Monsell - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 3.0 acres located at the south side of Monsell Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-138-1-2.1, 9.1, 13.1 & 14. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this Type 1 action. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert I. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: RE: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Board of Trustees Harbor View Realty ~ SCTM $1000-53-5-12.5 DATE: March 16, 1992 SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 The Southold Town Trustees wish to offer the following comments with respect to the Appendix to the L.H.A.F. of B. Laing Associates in this matter: 1. Although the L.E.A.F. details the need for a local wetland permit, the introduction fails to identify the need for a tidal wetlands permit under Chapter 97 for all activities within 75' of all wetlands to a depth of 5' below mean low water. 2. The Trustees believe that insufficient information has been presented to properly assess the wetland impact(s), if any, associated with the need to improve the access road North of the Southerly 1,500 feet. Since the degree of road development may be directly affected by the discretionary opinion or judgement of the Planning Board and or other regulatory and safety agencies, the applicant should receive some guidance in this area in establishing levels of potential impact. As it would seem that construction of a road of standard width would entail the alteration of freshwater wetlands, this issues may create a pivotal threshold requiring a positive declaration pursuant to SEQRA. The Trustees feel every opportunity should be given the applicant to improve the existing road bed without requiring alteration of freshwater wetlands. 3. As the Trustees actively participated in the state designation of the easterly section of Conklins Point as a significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat they request a more detailed account of the plans for community area "H". Given that most lots within the subdivision will afford quality swimming, this impact could be eliminated by dedicating this area for limited use on a timetable created by the regulatory agency with most experience in these matters, the NYSDEC. 4. The Trustees feel that the mooring plans for the northerly most basin, "Sage Basin" should be detailed or eliminated. Elimination of any mooring here would eliminate another potential SEQRA threshold as the Board believes the Southerly basin is large enough to accommodate the boating needs of this subdivision. The Southerly most basin should be laid out to show that it in fact will accommodate a vessel for each lot, if that is what is sought. 5. As this project relies on development closer to the Phragmitic pond on lots 3 and 4 than discussed on pre-submission, this pond should be fully characterized as to depth, soils, Flora, Fauna and water quality. Is this pond vernal? Does it support biological activity which would be impacted by development? Does any impact to the pond relate to the significant Coastal fish and wildlife area? With respect to this issue the Board has authorized its consultant Bruce Anderson to review these issues with a charge back to the developer at the prevailing SEQRA rate should the developer elect. In any case, we would request any report on this be made for our review prior to a SEQRA determination in this matter. 6. The Trustees believe that this is an environmentally responsible project and would suggest that the developer commence linkages with the Nature Conservancy, Peconic Land Trust, Ducks Unlimited or similar conservation entity to help steward the land preservation aspects of this proposal and allay the fears of the N.F.E.C. and others. We do however believe that the concerns of John Raynor and this Board should be fully addressed, so as to develop a legal basis for any SEQRA determination. RATCLIFF~' AND HITT AII~THUF~ T, "ATeI"II~'FE II', F~ICHARD HITT March 23, 1987 Jeffrey D. Forchellt 120 Mineola Blvd. P.O. Box 31 Mtneola, NY 11501 RE: Life estate of Greenport, NY Charlotte Jurgensen in home on Sage Blvd.', Dear Mr. Forchelli: My client, Charlotte Jurgensen, formerly CharlotteSage,. has asked me to write this letter to you regarding t~e:impending' sale of the real estate at Sage Blvd., Greenport, New York. She informs me that she retains a life estate in the home located on the property but she cannot locate any copies of deeds or the mortgage showing how title was passed when sold to your group of investors. Please forward a copy of the recorded deed and mortgage from your purchase of the property as well as a notarized letter from you stating that your sale of.the property will not affect her life interest. I have already informed her that if she does in fact own a life estate, subsequent sales will not affect her interests. Wlthbut seeing a copy of the deed trans, fering title, I cannot advise her. Your cooperation and assistan~,~ are appreciated. Very truly yours, : Terry B. Salisbury copy: {~rlotte Jurgen~en 7100 South Shore Dr. S. South Pasadena, FL 33707 AR~4^ND P D'^MATO JEFFKEY D, FOKCHELL| JACK L LIBEKT D'AMATO, I:OP. CHELLI, LIBEP. T, SCH~ARIZ 8 ~INEO COUNSELOK5 AT LAW I~0 MINEOLA BOULEVAI~ID P,O BOX31 March 30, 1987 Terry B. Salisbury, Esq. Ratoliffe and Hitt, Esqs. 433 Seventy-Sixth Avenue Post Office Box 66095 St. Petersburg Beach, Florida 33736 Life Estate of Charlotte Jurgensen in home on Sa~e Boulevardt Green~ortt New York Dear Mr. Salisbury~ : I am in receipt of your letter dated March 23, 1987 regarding ' the above. to the Purchaser.is subject to your client's life Our contract estate. At the closing, however, the life estate w~ like to attend the closing your client's mortgage will be paid in full, :T~tli~eUee~, yoIun at~.~!nrteYg~rUd~°n~l~t. , ,,ery truly yom, rs/ JDF/js · John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Reports Montauk Highway Water Mill, New York 11976 Design Phone: (516) 726-7600 Environmental Planning February 14, 1992 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: LEAF Review - Harbor View Landing Dear Mr. Odowski: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to us by the Planning Department and have the following questions and comments: In general, the LEAF provides sufficient information and analysis of the environmental factors which relate to the proposed action, being the elimination of 31 sub-standard seasonal cottages and septic systems, the re-alignment of Sage Boulevard and the creation of 10 single family residential lots. This should lessen on-site environmental impacts and have an overall positive effect. However, there are several questions that need to be answered prior to a SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. General Comments: The LEAF makes a point, used in the various analyses, that the houses will be designed in such a way as to attract "empty nesters". In this way, additional children are limited, which would tend to lessen some impacts, especially the impact to the local school system. Our experience is that while this is a fine concept, it may be difficult to put into practice or to assure the result, cannot be enforced by the Town, and the present developer may not be the ultimate builder. As the lots may become available for sale upon the filing of the subdivision map, this "empty nester" analysis is not recommended. Similarly, the idea that these will be second homes is also invalid for this analysis. Any part of the LEAF which relies on these concepts should be revised. While most of the proposed development takes place in already disturbed areas, the subject parcel lies within an area designated as both an "Area of intensive Aboriginal Habitat" by the Suffolk County Archaeological Association and as having Multiple Site Sensitivity by NYS. The LEAF discusses the issue of the site's potential archaeological sensitivity in some detail and proposes that "one month prior to roadway construction, the cottage and proposed road bed Jr. -2- Friday, ~ruary 14, '~992 areas demonstrating higher test recovery of artifacts will be thoroughly excavated." The applicants are aware that they will need both Tidal and Freshwater Wetland Permits from the N.Y.S.D.E.C. Recently this agency has been requiring amhaeological studies during the permit process. As Lead Agency, the Planning Board may want to consider asking the applicant to prepare an Archaeological Study at this time. We do not recommend allowing for "archaeological excavation prior to construction", unless more information is submitted and both the applicant and the Board agree on a future course of action in the event significant artifacts are uncovered. The soume of the information which is contained in the report is not mentioned, and should be noted. If an archaeological study has already been done by a qualified firm, it should be submitted in total. Stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project is to be collected in catch basins and piped to a series of leaching pools for recharge. Potential overflow is to be piped to a "Drainage Pond" which is located about 40' away from a freshwater wetland. Steps should be taken to avoid possible ovedlow with its attendent siltation & sedimentation, into the wetlands. Also, with such shallow depth to groundwater, will the drainage pond have enough capacity? The LEAF makes no mention of how the debris created by the demolition of 31 cottages, the removal of existing sanitary systems and the re-alignment of Sage Boulevard will be disposed of. In order to avoid disturbance to a pocket of freshwater wetlands, vehicular access to lot 4 is proposed via a r.o.w, that cresses lot 5. However, the proposed drive is located only about 5' from the edge of the wetlands. The Board may wish to explore the possibility of using the driveway for lot 5 as a common driveway. This would eliminate the need for an additional driveway so close to the wetlands. Similar concerns exist for lots 2 & 3. We note that Sage Boulevard is presently a private road. In the letter from the Police Chief, he states that since this is a private road, in the event of severe storms, etc., "it would not be possible to service the area". The LEAF itself does not indicate whether the read will be offered for dedication to the Town. In the general description of the project (p. 1), the report states "The existing roadway would be reconstructed for only its most southerly 1,500 linear feet or 0.90 acres". On page 5, it further states "This system" (the read) would occupy 0.90 acres and be desioned as a private road". However, the Subdivision Sketch Plan (S1, Part "A") contains a note that Sage Blvd. & Sage Court are to be offered for dedication to the Town for highway purposes. The proposed improvement of all parts of Sage Boulevard must be clarified. The "Half Road Section" on Sheet S1 shows a 24' wide pavement section with curbing, which would meet Town of Southold standards. It is unclear exactly where this would apply, however we would assume that it would only apply to the realigned section. This leads to a question as to what improvements are proposed, if any, for the remaining portion of the roadway. We do not believe that the westerly section of Sage Boulevard would be acceptable in its present condition (narrow pavement, with many potholes). We strongly recommend that the Planning Board explore this issue with the applicants with an eye towards the future use and disposition of Sage Boulevard. Our experience is that while private roads are initially perceived as a benefit to the developer and the future owners, in the long term a majority of owners on such private roads call for public control and maintenance. When that comes up, a special tax assessment district is called for to raise the funds needed for the road improvement to allow it to be accepted into the Town's highway system. 'Bs~ns~t Or~owski, Jr. -3- Friday, 10. 11. We do not believe that the Planning Board can demand that the roads be dedicated to the Town. However, they can require that the road be improved to Town specifications, and in some cases a Conditional Offer of Dedication has been requested along with an on-going maintenance bond to bring the road up to Town specs if the maintenance is lacking in the future. With these measures in place, a Town Law 200 (Road Improvement Special Tax Assessment District) may be avoided in the future. We would further recommend that due to the length of read involved, the Town discuss come narrowing of the pavement width for some portion of the roadway while still providing suitable width for Town acceptance. We would view the public control of this road as a positive impact, noting that it would alleviate another sub-standard condition and allow for full snow removal and improved access for police and other emergency services. Upon reviewing this proposal with the pending application of "Bay View Heights" we find that the proposed road alignment for the reconstructed portion of Sage Blvd. is acceptable, with enough "leeway" to allow for adjustment by the Planning Board to coordinate the potential road connection. The LEAF states that this property is in a flood zone but not a floodway which would experience velocity storm surges. In order that the future residents receive proper protection in the event of a storm, all houses have to be constructed according to certain standards designed to minimize storm damage. Minimum first floor elevations must be met, and sanitary systems must be elevated above groundwater. In addition to the flood zone construction standards and SCDHS regulations, we recommend: a). The profile for the proposed road should be designed with particular sensitivity to the possibility of flooding b). That detailed road plans be submitted showing all grading and fill needed, to analyse the impact on the wetlands. c). That detailed grading plans be required for all lots prior to construction showing all proposed grading and fill, sanitary systems, all structures, retaining walls and any other proposed site improvement. Various measures are outlined to mitigate potential adverse effects on wetlands and surface waters, such as the placement of hay bales along newly disturbed areas during road construction. To assure that such mitigation measures are carried through to the final approval, the applicant and their consultant such submit a listing to the Planning Board of such measures and their purpose, so that the Planning Board may incorporate them into any SEQRA decision and subsequent approvals (hay bales, Iow maintenance vegetation, etc.). It is noted that both of the proposed wateffrent homeowners pamels (A & I), which are slated for common area / recreation use have wetlands along the water. The impacts of any proposed use of either parcel must be identified. It is not enough to say that there are no plans for facilities on these parcels. In addition, the total number of moorings, docks and piers should be clarified. It appears that the numbers of boats to be docked would be reduced by 2, but the additional dock spaces is not clear. On page 56, the LEAF talks about a 75' wide wetland buffer along Southold Bay, an additional buffer where none currently exists. Only Iow maintenance vegetation is to be allowed. It should be noted that the area along the bay on most of the lots is bulkheaded, and not wetlands. ~snns~ Or~owski, Jr. -4- Friday, ~4, ~992 Therefore, the value as a wetland buffer area is questionable. 12. The access to the small triangular beach area, designated as "Homeowner's Association Pamel H" (next to lot 10) has only a five foot wide access strip. Under normal conditions, we would not recommend an access width of less than ten feet. In this case, the area along the property line is vegetated. Therefore, we recommend a narrowing of access strips for Lots nine and ten to allow for a 15 foot wide strip to the HOA parcel. 13. Homeowners Association Parcel "F" is 8.715 acres of Underwater Land. The sketch plan provides no upland access to the parcel. The intended use of the parcel is unclear. Is it possible for this parcel to be sold by the HOA to an adjacent property owner who may be interested in constructing or expanding a marina facility? Since it is adjacent to HOA Parcel "1", we would recommend that it be approved as one parcel unless the applicant presents some compelling reason otherwise. Misc. Comments: The areas shown on the proposed "Subdivision Sketch Plan" do not add up to either the Total Area shown in the Site Data Table or that mentioned in the LEAF. (83.409 acres vs 83.117 acres) The LEAF notes that 57.247 acres of the site will be left as "Open Space". The sketch plan denotes three parcels, Home Owners Association Parcels "B", "D" and "G", as being open space. The total of these pamels is 46.734 acres. All but one of the remaining HOA Parcels are to be used either for recreational purposes orthe proposed re-aligned Sage Boulevard. If indeed only 46.734 acres of the site is to be left in Open Space, the LEAF should be revised. The LEAF states on page one that the subdivision is limited to 21.1 acres. On page three the document states that development would occur on 22.0 acres. According to a statement on page 6, the residential area is 22.1 acres. Addition of the lot areas (16.25 acres), the right-of- way (4.5 acres) and the drainage area (1.9 acres) results in a total of 22.65 acres. The LEAF should be revised to reflect the actual total. Also, should the areas of the HOA parcels that will be retained for recreational purposes / boat moorings be included in this figure? The LEAF states that there are several areas to be deeded to the Town as permanent open space, and the map contains a note that HOA parcels B, D & G are offered to the Town. The notation that these are HOA parcels is somewhat misleading. I hope this information is of value to you in your SEQRA review. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., p.c. Richard Van de Kieft PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L, HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 February 25, 1992 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on February 24, 1992: WHEREAS on September 30, 1991, the Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process subject to receipt of revised maps; and WHEREAS on January 15, 1992, the revised maps were submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS on January 21, 1992, the Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process; and WHEREAS on January 28, 1992, the Planning Board received a response from the Department of Environmental Conservation s~Yating that based upon a review of the information submitted, the proposed action will require permits from the DEC. Due to the fact that the applicant for the project had not made an application to the DEC, that agency asked the Planning Board to defer their decision regarding lead agency determination until the DEC received a formal application; and WHEREAS on February 20, 1992, the Planning Board received a response from the Southold Town Trustees requesting an extension of time for review of the proposed map with respect to wetland issues; DE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board extend the time frame to determine lead agency status until the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, which is March 16, 1992. Attached for your information is a copy of the Planning Board's environmental consultant's report and a copy of the report from the Department of State. These reports, along with any other comments submitted in response to the Board's lead agency request, will be reviewed at the March 16th meeting. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. enc. cc: Very truly yours, , ~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr.F~j Chairman John Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Southold Town Board Robert DeLuca, Suffolk county Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, N.Y.S.D.E.C. Stony Brook Thomas Jorting, N.Y.S.D.E.C. - Albany William Barton, N.Y.S. Dept of State · e -e John J. n 7nor, F.E. & L.S., p,c. Civ', Engir,~.~er and Land Surveyor Dee,'l~e!d Green P O Box 720 Mont~uk FJighway Water Mill, New Yo,~ 11976 Phon~: (516) 72&7600 2ennett Or~ow¢,~i, Jr., Cha[rmar~ Planning Board Town of Sou!hold ? O. ~x 1179 SOu~o~, New YOrK 11971 Febmar! I. SOUTHOLO fOWN PLANNING BOARO LEAF Review · Harbor ']dow Lam,ding Oca,/',ir Odowski: We have reviewed the n:ateria!$ ior.',';:~rd¢d :0 US by the =' "' ~ a,,n;ng ~Jep. sdmem and have tho follow;rig questioq~ and comments' wh~ci~ relate to ~he proposed ACt;On, be)r,9 the e~imir:sUon of :31 sub.standard seasonal cc~agos and septic ~7slom~, ~he to-alignment of Saga 8ou~evard and the cfealicn o~ 10 siog;e fam~iy residendal ~ots. This ~ouid lessen on-site environmen~e~ knpsd¢ ¢~'d I~ave ar~ overa~i ~stlwe effect. Howe~or. there are s~v'eraf QuesSons thai need 10 be ~.nSwered prior to a SEQRA determination by l~e Planning E~ard The LBAF makes a point, used in [he various analyses, that lhe houses will be dasigr~ed in such ~ way as to a~ract "e:np~y neslers'. ~n thi~ way, a(~ional c~i~:on ale li:'nitod, which would tend t0 lessen some impacts, especiai)y (:~e imp~cl to Ih8 local School ~ystem. Our experience is tha~ while Ibis ;~ a fine sc~ept, it may Le dr~icu~ ~o pul into ¢¢acl~ce or lo zssure lbo resu;L cannot be enforced b/;ne Town, and Ih,' presenl dove!opel may not be the u!lim~te builder As th9 lots may become av.~i:~b',u for s;W. u~n the filing of the ra~ivision m:4p. this "empty ~estar' analysis is nc~ re;~mmenda3. Si'.nifady, the ida;4 fhat Ihese w,lJ be Second homos is revised. t~e N.Y.S D E C R~c~n;ly th;'¢ 3~en(:y his been requi:mg a~oha6otog~o~i ~tL~dies during "archaeologicAl excavation p4or to ~nst:uction", ur Jess n'4,re informer;on is submitted and ~tn the applicant and the Board adree cna ~uture course of acbon ~n tho event s golf,cant artifacts are uncovered The source c,t hoe ioformatioa .wnior~ is c~;ntained in the report ;sno; meRlioned, .~nd sho,~kt be coted If an archaeological study has already been done by a qualified firm, ,:'t shoutd be submilted in total. Stormwater runoff generated by the p~'opased project is Jo .b3 coiieclad In c,~tch basins and pipad to a ser~es of ie~ching ~s for fec~a~e avoid ~ssibie ov~iow w~ ~ts a~e~en~ siltat~?n & sedime~ahOn, t~1o h~e wedan(~. Also, wit~ such shallow deplt~ io gro~r~d'w~cC ~i!t the drainage ~od h&ve t~nough c~par, i~y? The LEAF makes no mention o¢ hew the debris crc~tcd by !he demoEtion et 31 ce~lages, Ine removal of existing s.s¢~;taP! s¥~!em& ~nd, )he ~'e-a~ignment el S~.~ge RoulOvard wi!i he disposed of. In order lo avoid disturbance !o A ~.od(e! :f freshwater weHand$, vehicular access i9 !o~ 4 is pro¢osed v;a ~ rio w. thai c¢o~es icl 5. However, (he pfoi>gsed drive is lec~ed orl!y a~ut 5' from the edge el ',he we~J~nds. Th6 BoarJ may wish to ex?ore the ~ssibiiiJy Of u:~ing the ddveway for lot S as a common driveway. T~Ls wouid eliminale lhe ~:¢ed ~or af~ additional drlw~way so c~ose ~o the wet!~nds Sirn;ie~ ~f~co~s exist for lots 2 & 3. We note ~hat S~.ge Btu!eva. rd i~, pr6seml7 .a pdv;:ie road in the lutt,~r f;om ~ha Police Chief, he st&tee thai since mis is a pf~v~:8 ;cad, In toe 8vent of sever~ sIo~s, glo, "it would no[ be offered fo; dddicatioR to ~he To~/n In the gener¢l description el Ina Frojoct (p 1), The re~ slates 'The existing roa~¢¢ay would be r6sor~tn~ed for only ~ mosI southerly 1 ,S00 Iinear. feet or 0.90 acres" On p~ge 5, ~ fdnher ~1e~ "This system" (the roddl wou~d occupy 0.90 acres and be ~zi~Ee~ nn F~ or'~,/~* However, the Subdivision Sketch Plan (S1, Pa~ "A") coniains a note mat Sage BK.d. & SAge C. 60~ a:e lo ge cfIered for dedication to Ih~ Town far ~ignway pur~ses. l'he proposed improvemgnt of ¢ii pa,'l~; el S2. ge 8o~lev;~rd must 5e cladt!ed The "iqalf ~oad Town of Sou(hoki standards I1 is unclear exa~Iy where Ibis would a~piy, however we would Improvements 3,e proposed. ~ any, for Ih~ rernainin9 ~dion ~;f ~he rnad~ay We do riel balde~ e !hat the westedy se(~ior, ct Sage ~Ou;~v~rd would bo acc~:pfable ;n ils p~esenl condition (n~urow pavement, with m~ny/.2tholes) ~)'~ ~o'/;~rFJs ~he lurers use 2qd ¢i~;p~}i]o i et Sage ~OLdeVRrd Our exl)erienco 9 Town. However, they e~n requiee ~h.~l th( road ~ h~¢oved ~o Town seecil~c~tio¢~:~, ¢,~d in some oases a Conditional O~:er of Ded~:~n has ~,en requested along with an o n.gcing mzintenar~ce ~nd to bdn¢ the road tip to Town Specs ff ihs rnaintena~e is lacking In the futura. W~th ~hese measuras in p~a~, a T~wn Law 200 (Road improvement Spo<~al T~x Assessment Oistricl) may be zvoided ia the future We would turthcr recommend that due to the lard, th gl road involved, the 'Town discuss ~me narrowing O~ t~e pavement wi~h ior son~2 poitbn of the ¢oadway wi~iJe sti!J providing sg~abJe w~h for Town acceptance, We wouid view ll~e public conlroJ cf l~!s road ;la a pos;tire impact, noting that ~ would ~!:eviate ~nother sub-otand~ ~nd~ion ar, o allow tot tull snow re~val and improved access for police and other em~er~y services. U .p-s'~n reviewing this proposal w~,h the pe~dln,.q ~pph~.a ion of ,.:,ay ,/~w ~h~ prc~saa road alicnmer, t he recc.~stpJoted ponlorJ of Sa~ae alva enough ......... ,. connection. t-he LEAF .~ta!es lhat this prepare/is In a f 'k..,'o,d zo~:o bul ~',ot a floodway wt'fich would experience velocity storm suree$ Jr, order tP, a~ the future ~esia<¢:,ts reoeiv~ proper pr:~tec~lon oia storm, all houses h,':-ve to De oonstru.4ed &£~"ord;r;,g fo cede. in .st&nda,.'ds designed r'f~nhy;¢ze storm da, n~,~ge. ~.~,i,qimum ii~.i t!.. or elevmiOns must bt: met. ::,,,'~d sanJte, r'/systems must e..S, elevated above grouctdwater In add,,on to lbo flood zone cor~strucdon standards and SCDi4$ reguialio~",s, we recommend: The profile tot the prcp~)se¢ road should be deal,gnarl with particul.~r sensili;,i[y to the possibility of flooding p,,;,n. 0-, ~ur.,,.,,.,.,d Showing alt gradlr~g ~nd fill need'~d, ta analyse the irr~pa~'l on li~e well.ntis. c). Trial data:led grading plans be requ red for ai~ Iols pdor lo cons~ructio,"~ showL'~g all proposed gr;_;dihg and fi!l, sar~?~a~, So,Sierra, ali S'.r'jeure.-';,, ceta4nlno we!l__, and any other proposed sro irc~provemenl. waists, 8u'..h .as Ihs p!acerr,~e,':,t gl hay hal ~.s n!or,g J~ewly ¢.~istu~t~ed areas c~Jring ro~td ¢,Onstrdctio,q. To assure lha~ such miligat or~ ~,"noasL,¢es aie c..,~cti~d ~hrough to the fln.~:l approv(d, the ..-,_ppi;cant ~..'~d !heir cons~hant such o;,bmff a ILsdng to Ihs Pl~n,alr, g 8,,oafd o( such ~r~B~suros and ti~e~r purp<;ae, so thai the F'lar~n!r'~g E :;ard m,:]y i~co~por~!e ~hem ir,t,) any SECiRA Oo¢iLion and subsc, quor~t ~pproval$ (hay b;.~les, lo:v mainler'anc~ veget;~hon, ale) If ts noted ~hat ~-o!h of ~n(¢ propos.~d ~val~; fitCh! homeowners :D~:~rcels (A & I), v.h[ch arc slated be .noted thai t~e ;~rea alert0 the b.~y on, ~s', of :ho lois is bulkheadad, and not wetlands. Therefore the '-';due as a weil;-:nd buff(-r ~rea i,,~ questionable. H" (next ~o lot 10~ b;~ only ~ iive fe~t w,c ~ ~ccess s~np Under Retina; ~ndilions. we would no~ recommecd sn ¢~e~ width c~ ~ th~¢ ten leer. In this case, the area along Ihe propeny line is ceOetAied. Therefore, wa f¢commen6 a nar¢owing ol ~ccess strips for Lots nine and ion ~o al~w for 8 !5 foo~ wide slap ~o lhe HCA i aroel 13. Homeowne~ Asso.c. i3tio¢~ P~;col "?' is 8 715 ac:es o; Un0e,'v,,ater L~nd. Th8 5kelch p/an provides no upla~d a~ess to ine p~rcel The in,ended use of ~he p~fcet is unclear. ~s ~ ~ib!e for tl~is percel to be scm by the HCA Io an adiccenl p~peny owner wh~ may be interested in ~nslmcling or expaf~ing a marina facili~y~ Sin~ it is adjacent Io HCA Parcel "l", we would recommend thef ~ be 8pprove~ ( as one paroeJ unless the applicant presents some compeidng re~son mhe~ise. p ~.~ .... '~ubcJvisJo~ Sketch PJa~"u~.~ ¢o~ ~od dp ~O e~her ~he To,al acres) The LEaF rotes i?..~t 57.247 3¢r.~s el th.~ ske will be le~ as 'Open :~pace". The Sketch plan denotes ~hree pL~C81S, Hom~. O,~ners Ass~iatlon Parceis *B', "D" and 'G", as b~mg open 3 The LEAF st.~.!-~:; on page one that ',he SL b~Jvislon is limited to 2i .I acres. On page three !he document stdJ~s th3t d0'¢aJo~)me~t week ~cur on 2~ 0 ~cfes. ACCOrding lo ~ malemenJ on page 6, ~he r¢~der~!~;~; area is 22.1 ~cres ACtion 0¢ th6 lot arenas (~d25 acre~), the righi-o¢- way (4.5 acres) and '.he dra;n>~ge area (I. ~ acres) resets in a to,al et 22.~ ~cces. -ri~e L~AF should be rev;sod to refiegl the ~dual total. Also, shouM the ~re~s of the I ~OA parcels lhat wiil be retained fcr fecre~tlonal purposes / ~ at mooring~ be incJuded ;n this figure? The LEAF states t. ha~ lhere a;e ¢0v.-'~raI a oas to bp doodad 1o lhe Towna~- ¢,.,rm=nun,~-'. * ~ , open space, and the map ',;on~ains L'~ .nolo ii~a~ i ~OA parcels 8, D & G are o~'iered lo the Town The ~ota,:on thai ,,,.:~,, are ~- ~ ......... ¢ so ~ewhat misleading. I hoF, e ;his info;mc!ion in of vaJue to:,,,u'* I,,"- your SEQRA rev}ow. Shouid you have any questinn.~ p?;ase f~,, l'rue ~e COnt,~ct ou: O~iCe Very lrgly yours. JOHN J. RAYNOR, PE& I_ S. Rk~.h,~rd ?',% GAlL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE AlbAN¥.N.Y. 12231-O001 February 19, 1992 Re: S-92-010 Lead Agency Status for SEQRA Coordination - Harbor View Landing Subdivision Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letters of January 21, 1992 regarding your request for comments on the designation of the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency under SEQRA for the above-referenced proposals. The Department of State has no objections to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency responsibility for this project. We do, however, have some comments and questions on several items pertaining to the proposed subdivision: l) The easternmost finger of land (approximately 1.5 acres) is proposed as Homeowner's Association "open space" according to Part "A" of the sketch plan. This finger of land is located within the boundaries of the designated Conkling Point significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Intensive use of this open space should be discouraged in order to minimize impacts to nesting activities of colonial water birds in the area, particularly least terns and piping plovers. 2) Due to the likelihood that existing dock structures will be modified through replacement, repair or reconfiguration, a Corps of Engineers approval for this in-water work may be necessary. The listing of permitting agencies on page 2 of the report should be revised to reflect this authorization. 3) How will public access along the shoreline of the property be affected by this proposed project? The ownership of underwater lands at this site should be established. An opportunity to enhance or develop public access may be possible via this proposal. This opportunity should be addressed. Mr. Bennett Ortowski, Jr. February 19, 1992 Page 2 4) Page 5 of the report states that two commercial fishing vessels used this site prior to purchase by the current owner. Did these displaced vessels relocate to another location? Will this loss of commercial fishing activity be compensated? Will provisions be made to provide continued space at this site for commercial fishing activities? 5) What impacts will the proposed dock modification and use have on State water quality classifications and existing shellfish beds at and near the site? Will all non-point runoff be contained on-site? More detailed plans should be prepared showing how this concern will be addressed. 6) Several of the 10 properties shown on sketch plan "A" have building envelopes that are apparently large enough to allow further setback of the proposed residences from Southold Bay. TO minimize any effects on the visual quality of the shoreline and water quality in $outhold Bay, these residences should be located as far from the waterfront as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call Mike Corey at (518) 474-6000 if there are any questions. WFB/rdc ,;~-'cc: DOS - Mike Corey Peter Walsh sinc?rely, IY' . ~illiam F. B~rton . ~io~r~asR~'~e~e~s and Waterfront Revitalization ~ February 21 Ms. Melissa Spiro Southold Planning Department Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Harborview Landing Subdivision Sage Blvd., Greenport Dear Melissa, I am writing to you today to ask that the above mentioned project, which is a Type I action, be given a Positive Declaration under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Quite frankly, I don't see how it is possible for you to do otherwise. A conditioned negative declaration cannot be used because this is a Type I action and to issue a negative declaration would be wrong when so many areas of environmental concern associated with the project have been identified. Some of the areas that we are most concerned about are the rare and endangered species that utilize the site. Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State. Additionally, we are concerned about .Sage Boulevard. The right-of-way extends through the significant freshwater wetlands which are found in the northerly section of the site. It is proposed that the road be dedicated to the Town of Southold. In order for this to happen the entire roadway, all 3,760 feet, must meet town highway specifications which would mean tripling its current width and adding a drainage system. This means that some wetlands will be filled in. While we feel that it may be desirable to improve Sage Blvd., we also feel that we should know upfront how many acres of wetlands will be involved and how the drainage system will be built. We feel that improving the road should be the responsibility of the applicant and not become a burden to the taxpayers at a later date. The third area of concern extends to the proposal to use Sage Basin for boat mooring. The future homeowner's will have access to the water for recreation, docking and mooring from Area D which is a 1.29 acre site that includes an already disturbed bulkheaded area. The need to also use Sage C.ove should be carefully examined and perhaps eliminated from the plan. a non-profit organization for the preservation of land. sea, air and quality of life printed on 100,% recycled paper I would like to suggest that a Positive Declaration be given for this project and that a narrowly scoped DEIS be prepared on the three issues that I have outlined above. Of course any other concerns that the Planning Board should have could also be addressed. Thank you for the opportunit~ to state our concerns. that they will be considered. I hope Sincerely, Sherry ,Johnson Program ¢oord±nator cc Roger Evans, DEC Louise Harrison, SCDHS Southold Trustees Southold Town Board John Bartow, Dept. of State TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henr7 P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. lohn L. Bednoski, Jr. lohn B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Tow~ Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Planning Board Melissa Spiro Southold Town Trustees Harbor View Realty #53-5-12.5 February 20, 1992 Due to this office being short staffed and an influx o~ routine permit matters we have been unable to review the L.E.A.F. for Harbor View landing and proposed map with respect to wetland issues. If possible the Trustees will review this map and L.E.A.F. at our February 27, 1992 worksession and would hope to get you our comments within one week. JMB:jmt PIANI]I~'I(i E;0ARI) New York State Department of Environmental Conaervation 5o o d Dear Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE This letter responds to your communication of '/~'/9 , 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: DEC Permits (if any): DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: DEC Position: Type I [ ] Unlisted Based on the information provided: has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for DEC 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. Comments: [ ] see attached [ ] none 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. CC: Please feel free to contact this office for further infgrmatlzr~ (attach distribution list) ' ~.~/' TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Ir. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Planning Board Melissa Spiro Southold Town Trustees Harbor View Realty 953-5-12.5 February 20, 1992 Due to this office being short staffed and an influx os routine permit matters we have been unable to review the L.E.A.F. for Harbor View landing and proposed map with respect to wetland issues. If possible the Trustees will review this map and L.E.A.F. at our February 27, 1992 worksession and would hope to get you our comments within one week. JMB:jmt TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Planning Board Melissa Spiro Southold Town Trustees Harbor View Realty #53-5-12.5 February 20, 1992 Due to this office being short staffed and an influx o~ routine permit matters we have been unable to review the L.E.A.F. for Harbor View landing and proposed map with respect to wetland issues. If possible the Trustees will review this map and L.E.A.F. at our February 27, 1992 worksession and would hope to get you our comments within one week. JMB:jmt GAlL S. SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 STATE OF NEW YORk DEPARTMENT Of STATE ALbANY, N.Y. 12231-0001 February 19, 1992 Re: S-92-010 Lead Agency Status for SEQRA Coordination - Harbor View Landing Subdivision Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letters of January 21, 1992 regarding your request for comments on the designation of the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency under SEQRA for the above-referenced proposals. The Department of State has no objections to the Town of Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency responsibility for this project. We do, however, have some comments and questions on several items pertaining to the proposed subdivision: 1) The easternmost finger of land (approximately 1.5 acres) is proposed as Homeowner's Association "open space" according to Part "A" of the sketch plan. This finger of land is located within the boundaries of the designated Conkling Point significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Intensive use of this open space should be discouraged in order to minimize impacts to nesting activities of colonial water birds in the area, particularly least terns and piping plovers. 2) Due to the likelihood that existing dock structures will be modified through replacement, repair or reconfiguration, a Corps of Engineers approval for this in-water work may be necessary. The listing of permitting agencies on page 2 of the report should be revised to reflect this authorization. 3) How will public access along the shoreline of the property be affected by this proposed project? The ownership of underwater lands at this site should be established. An opportunity to enhance or develop public access may be possible via this proposal. This opportunity should be addressed. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. February 19, 1992 Page 2 4) Page 5 of the report states that two commercial fishing vessels used this site prior to purchase by the current owner. Did these displaced vessels relocate to another location? Will this loss of commercial fishing activity be compensated? Will provisions be made to provide continued space at this site for commercial fishing activities? 5) What impacts will the proposed dock modification and use have on State water quality classifications and existing shellfish beds at and near the site? Will all non-point runoff be contained on-site? More detailed plans should be prepared showing how this concern will be addressed. 6) Several of the 10 properties shown on sketch plan "A" have building envelopes that are apparently large enough to allow further setback of the proposed residences from Southold Bay. To minimize any effects on the visual quality of the shoreline and water quality in Southold Bay, these residences should be located as far from the waterfront as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call Mike Corey at (518) 474-6000 if there are any questions. Sincerely, ' ./Filliam F. B~rton Chief, Proj~t Review Bureau Division of'Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization WFB/rdc cc: DOS - Mike Corey Peter Walsh NORTH FORK NVlRONkI£NTAL COUNCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 Ms. Melissa Spiro Southold Planning Department Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: February 21,.-aa9 Harborview Landing Subdivision Sage Blvd., Greenport Dear Melissa, I am writing to you today to ask that the above mentioned project, which is a Type I action, be given a Positive Declaration under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Quite frankly, I don't see how it is possible for you to do otherwise. A conditioned negative declaration cannot be used because this is a Type I action and to issue a negative declaration would be wrong when so many areas of environmental concern associated with the project have been identified. Some of the areas that we are most concerned about are the rare and endangered species that utilize the site. Conklin Point has been designated as a Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State. Additionally, we are concerned about Sage Boulevard. The right-of-way extends through the significant freshwater wetlands which are found in the northerly section of the site. It is proposed that the road be dedicated to the Town of Southold. In order for this to happen the entire roadway, all 3,760 feet, must meet town highway specifications which would mean tripling its current width and adding a drainage system. This means that some wetlands will be filled in. While we feel that it may be desirable to improve Sage Blvd., we also feel that we should know upfront how many acres of wetlands will be involved and how the drainage system will be built. We feel that improving the road should be the responsibility of the applicant and not become a burden to the taxpayers at a later date. The third area of concern extends to the proposal to use Sage Basin for boat mooring. The future homeowner's will have access to the water for recreation, docking and mooring from Area D which is a 1.29 acre site that includes an already disturbed bulkheaded area. The need to also use Sage Cove should be carefully examined and perhaps eliminated from the plan. a non-profit organization for the p*eservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper I would like to suggest that a Positive Declarmtion be given for this project and that a narrowly scoped DEIS be prepared on the three issues that I have outlined above. Of course any other concerns that the Planning Board should have could also be addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to state our concerns. that they will be considered. I hope Sincerely, Sherry Johnson Program Coordinator cc Roger Evans, DEC Louise Harrison, SCDHS Southold Trustees Southold Town Board John Bartow, Dept. of State John J. Rsynor, P.E. & ES., p.c. Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Dee,'l~eld Green P O Box 720 R~p.~n~ Montauk Highway Water Mill, New Yin1.; 11976 De~gn Phone: (516) 726-7600 ~ennett Odcw. P. ki Jr.. Chairman '~'owt~ of Souihofd P O, P~x 1179 SOut~o~, New Yo~ 11971 I SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARI) Re LEAF Review - H~rbor View Lemdl~g Dcar Mr Odowski: We have reviow,~d the n;ater:,a!'~ ior¢.'.4rded :.o us by the Piannlng Dcp~dment and have the following questions and comments' wr,~c~ relate to the pro~sed ~ct~on, being the e~imin~tion of ~ l sub-s~ndard seasonal co,ages and ~ept~c system~. ~he ~e-ali¢:~ment of Sage Boulevard aJad the crealloJ: of l0 single ~amiiy res~demial Iol~ This ~outd lessen on-site epvironmenteJ ~rnpads md I~ave ar~ overall ~sthve effect, However. there are several ques(ior~s that need to be ~nSwered pr;or ~o a SEQRA determination by lhe Planning ~ard Th~ LEAF makes a poinL used in J. he var;GUS analyses, that the hou.Ses will be designed in such ~ way as to atlra6J "empty ,nee, ers' ~n Ibis way, additional chiJd,-en me lirmted, which wouk.t. tend. tO lessen ';ome impacts, especiai!y lac impac! to lha local School ~ystem. Ou, r experience is th~; while this ;s ~ fine .'¢cn,.'ept, it, may Le d~icuii to put into p~'aclice or cannot be enforced b'/thc Town, and ih(' p,'esenl developer may not be the ultimale build,;r AS the lots may become ~vailebl.¢ for s;le upon the .tiling Gl lhe subclivision map. !his *empty nester' analysis is no~ recommended, Similarly, the ide~ that these ~iso invalid for tl~!s analysis. Any part of ;t~e LEAF: which relies ~¢1 these concepts sl~ould b,~ re'¢ised. While n',o:~t of d~e plopo~ed developm~n~ takes place in al~ead)' disturbed areas, ,.he subiecJ parcel fie~ within ~n area designated as b.}th .~¢~ 'Area Gl Intensive A~,igina~ HabiJal' by ~he Sutfofk Coumy Archaeolog~cai ~socJatio I ar~ as having Mu~¢f~ Site SensRivity by NYS The LEAF discusses the i~.~e of ~he s~e's ~ eolial .wohaeofogic~ sensitivity in some detail and pro¢oses ~l~a~ "cn~ mond~ pr;or lo roadw~ y gcnsJrucd,~n, lhe cmlage arid pro.sad road b~}d t~ae hJ.Y.S D E C R~c,en ly this a~ency h~s been requi~n~ archaeolog~ca~ studies during the patak p¢ocess As Lead Agency, the PL:nning Board may wa,~t [c consider asking the applicant to propose an Archaeo!o¢i,2~l S~dy ~l this tfm~ We do del m~mmend ;]l[owing for "archaeologic~i axe, ration prior to ~,~st,uct[on', unle~ m~te information is submitted and ~th the ~pptisant and ~he Bo~¢d agree cna fulure course of action in the event artifacts are un.voted The source of f,he infer,motion whicl'~ is 6~:r~tained in the ~-eporl is no; mentioned, and shotJId be rtofed ]f an ark na~olo§,ua~ study has already been done by a qualified firm,, ~1 should b~ subm.itted in Storm, water runoff generated by the proposed proje~ is to be eoiie¢led in catch basins and piped to a series of leaching pools for recharge Potenlial overflow is fo be piped to a "Drainage Pond" which is Iocaled a~ut 40' away fram a fresh, afar wetland. Sloes should be laken ~o ~vo~d possibie ov~fl!ow w~lh ~ts a~e~en: siltatK~n & sadime~tal¢on, into Ina wedand~. Aisc, wi~ such shat!ow depth io g¢oun~ter, :vi!l the drainage ~nd have enough capacily? Th8 LEAF mares no re.enrich o¢ how ihe debris created by the dcm.old'on of 31 co,loges, tho removal of existir~g sanitary systems ~r~1, :he re-alignment ol S~ge Boulevard wi!i ~;,e dlsposed In order to avo;d di$Iurbance to a pod(et cf fresWwa~er wedands: vehicular access l~ lo; 4 is proposed v[~. a r.f.~ w. that crosses iot 5, Haweve¢, the p¢opssed drive is loc~ed only about 5' from iha edge ol ',he we!lands. The Boa¢:l may wish to explore the possibiiiiy of using the ddveway for lot 5 as a oomn%'n driveway. TI~ would eliminate the ¢4¢ed !or an additional driveway ac close to the wetlands Sirniiar concerns exist for lots 2 & 3 We note that Sage Boulevard i.~ presemty a pdvate -cad in the letier f~om, ~he Police Chief, he states that since this iS a private coati, in i~e 8vent o! ~evere storms, elc, "it would not be possible to sar¥ice the area" The LEAF ;iseff doe~ ¢,ot indic~,te wnefhc;r fha road will be offered ~0~ dC~diC~tion to the Town In the general description el the Frojeet (p 1), the raped ~t~tes "The existing road'way would be recon~lruoed Ior only ilr~ most southerly i ,,SO0 iinear feet or 0..90 acres" On pa~e 5, if fddher -,1ales "This system" (the road) weuid o¢(;(;py 0.90 acre~ and be designed a~ a ori,zat~_ ~uad" However, Ihe Suf.:,dlvision Sketch Ptan (SI, Pad coniainS a note that Sage Bl~,d & Sage ¢.our! ate fo oe offered ~or dedication fo lha Town far highway purposes. The proposed imp~ovemen~ of ell pads of Sage B~flevard taus! be clarified Tho "idalf Pood Section" on Sheet SI shows a 24' wide pavem.ent seclion wilh curbing, wh;ch would mee~ Town of Southold slandards II ~ unclear exa~ly where lhis would apply, however we wou!d s~ume tha~ ~ would only apply ~0 lhe rea(~ned sexton. Thi~ lead& Io a question as Io what improvements a~e pro~sed, ff any, for the rematnln9 ~dion of the rnadway. We do not believe that the westedy ser~ioh of Sa~e ]ou~evard would be acceplab~e ;n ils present condition (Rafrow pavement, w~h re.any ¢~lholes) We strongly r~co,*,~mend that the P~anninf; Board explore this ;s~ue with the appiicanIs with an eye towards the fu~t~re u~e and dis~sMo,~ of Sage Boulevard Our experience is ¢hal private roads ~re initiate), pe¢ceivad ~S a b,~nef~ Io tf~e developer ~nd the future owners, in [ho ~ong le~n a malor~zy of owner8 on ~uch pr; ¢~le roads call for public ~nlrol and mair tenance When that comes up, a special tax a~e&¢mem d~slti~ is called lei ~o raise Ihe fur~s needed the coati improvement 1¢; RIIow ~l to be a~epled into the Towr~'s h~ghway syslom FHdsy, Fe~,rua,"y I¢. 19,32 We do not believe th:~_t t~;e Ptannirg Boar,~ can demand that the roads be dedicated to the Tc, wn. However, they can require that th~ mad ~ ~roved to Town specification:;, ~n~ in some case5 a Condibona~ Oiler of Oed~:i~n has ~en requered along with 3n on-going m~intenance ~nd to bring the road up tc Town Specs ~ the maintena~e is ~ack~ng in the future. W~th these measures in p~a~, a T~wn ~w 200 (Road improvement Spot',al A~essment D~stricl) may be ~voided in the future We would luther recommend that due tc the ler~h of road involved, the ~own d~scuss n~r¢owing of t~e p~vemen~ wi~h lot so~k, ~dbn ~f the ¢oa~.ay while stl!l provldt~g suitable wish for Tow~ acceptance, We would view the public control of t~is ~ad as a ~s~tive impa¢, noting that ~ would ~!leviate ~nother sdb-~,tanda~ ~nd~ion and allow tot full snow red, va[ and improved access for police and other em~er~y so.ices. U~n reviewing ~his prc~s~l w~h the per,ding application of "Bay View Heirhts" we i~nd that ¢~e pro.sod road &li¢nment for the recc;lstpJcted p~dior~ of Sage Bird ts acceptabie, with e~ough 'leeway" to ~iow for ad~,st~ent ~y the P~an:~ing Board Io coo~d~¢~a~e the t~tentia! road connection. ~he L~A~ ~tates that this prope~ is ~n ~ ¢~d zo~e but ~t a floodway which would experience wJocity sierra 8urges In o~er th3i the fL'~ure resiQe:~ts receiv~ proper prf)tec~ion i;n (he event oi a storm, ail houses h~ve to De ~ns[ru ;tO a~rdJng to cede. tn Ct&halOids designed to ff)inimizQ storm damage. Minimum fi~t tkor eleva~bns must b,~ met, arid s~nita~ systems must be elevated a~ve groundwater In addf(4on to the flood zone const~cdon standards and SCDI4S regulations, we recommend: a) The profiie for the prc~sed road shou~ ~ designed wil~ pa~lcular sensitivity to the ~ssibilily of flooding b). Th&t detailer ro~d pl~n5 be subrn;!~:~d s~wing all gradiog ~ fill needed, to analyse the impa~ on the wetlands, c) fna~ detailed grading p',ans be requ red lot ~I[ lots pdor to cons~raction showi~ al! pro~s~ grading and fill. san~aW Srte~, ali ~pjrure¢, ['el~,nin9 w¢!ts and any other pro~sed si~o improvemenl. Various me.utes are oudined ~o m~iga/¢ ~tontial ad,'af~e effects on wetlar~ds And surface water~, such a~ lhe placement of hay ba!~s along newly distu~ed sreas ~jring road ~nstmcfion. To assure thai such mitig~t,on ~asures a~e c~rdad ;brough to the final approval, the applicant ard their consultant SUCh s~,bmff a I~ti~ to lbo Planning BoArd gl su¢~ measures and their pu~se, so that the P~anning E~a~ may [n~or~te them irate Any S~ORA deci~;~on and Subsoquon[ approvals (hay bales, Iow maintenance vegetabon, el6 ) It ~s noted that ~[h of ~ne pro~sed wats4ront homeowners parcels (A & I), which are slated for ~m~n area / r~;cr~&tion use h2ve wetlcnds a~ong the w~ter. The irnpadS of an) prop3sed u:]e of elzher psrc¢ musi be ident~ied. It ~ ~ eno;Job to $&y that there ~r8 no pie, nS for facilil',es on these parcels. In additbn, tho total [tumbsf of ~orin~$, dock5 and piers should be Cl¢dfied It 3ppears that the ,numbem of ~a~s to be docked would be reduced by Z. but addilion~i do~ spaces is riel clear. On p~ge 56, ine LEAF t~lks a~ul a 75' ;vMe eetland buffer along SoulhOld Bay, an additional b~ifer where none ~en~iy exists. Only ~w ~imenance ~,e¢~etation ;s [o be ~llowed. It H" (n~xt to ~ot I0) i:~S oniy a ~w, ~,~J~ w~c~ ~ccess stnp Under r~onnal c~nditionS, we would r~omm~td t~n s'~ widlh Gf l~.s thor: ten leel. !n Ibis case. the area along the property line aI~w for a !5 fool ~z;de stop ~o ihe HCA i arCel 13. Homuo~-¢nem Aasociafior'i Pa¢oq "? i$ 8 715 a:¢ree O[ Unde,'water Land Th8 ska',ch plan for 1h~s parcel to be sold by ~he [ ICA to ~n adi~ceni p~pedy owner w~ may be woui~ recommend th~I ~ b= appro~'es; as one parcel UnIeSS me applicant presents some compei!ing reason olhe~ise. Tn be used e~ih'-- for recreational pu~s('s or the praised re.aligned Sage Bouk~vard 3 way (4.5 .~cr&s) and '.he drain;ge ama (!. '~ acres) resu~s i¢ a tO,al pt 22,~ ~cres. 'Fi~e LEAF should b8 rev;Sad to reItecI Ih¢ ~dual torsi. Also, shouM the ~re~s of the HCA p~rsels that will be retmned for sacre~tional put. sas / b<at moorings t~ inciuded space, a~ the map ,%mtains a note lhat i ePA patois B, D & O ;)re oilers !o the Town ~otat ,sm ~hat m~,se afc HO/-~ parcels is so ~what tn;sleadin9. I ho¢¢e fi',s informer;on is of vaIF~ to ?'od i~y, our SEQRA, rev aw_ Should you have ;any quesfinns, p!e~sse fsef free to contact eu; office Very truly yours, JOHNJ. RAYNOR, P.E &I.S.pc. R~hard Van de Kiolt B. LAING SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 225 MAIN STREET, NORTHPORT, NY 11768 516-261-7170 FAX: 516-261-7454 February 6, 1992 Mr. Roger Evans Region I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11794 RE: Harbor View Landinq Wetland Applications Dear Roger: Please find enclosed a joint application for activities to occur in association with the attached project. The combined application seeks from NYSDEC: Article 24 (Freshwater wetland) approval for a relocated roadway within 100 feet of freshwater wetlands. Article 25 (Tidal wetlands) approval for subdivisions of those lots within your jurisdiction. Article 25 (Tidal wetlands) approval for the removal of eight docks and 18 pilings and the repairs of two larger existing docks with the replacement of floating docks and 18 pilings. From U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Section 10 Federal approvals per Item 3 (no 401 certifica- tion or 404 approval is required because no fill in Tidal or Freshwater wetlands is involved). From NYS Department of State: Coastal consistency certification. B.Laing Associates Page 2 February 6, 1992 The SEQRA EAF (expanded) was distributed to you on January 21, 1992. The application form, a fee of $950.00, cross section and plan view of the Sage basin (6 copies) and a subdivision/ sketch plan map (6 copies) of the 80 acre parcel are attached. This application fulfills your comment of January 23, 1992, and so, we will expect lead agency comment to follow. Please note that the subdivision, as proposed, will donate/restrict development on almost 70 percent of the parcel, including waterfront properties (see the EAF for details). While the whole parcel was industrially developed for many years, the proposed lots would occur largely on that 30 percent of the parcel now maintained as a rental "cottage" use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, · Bontj e President JACSAG12/SC I1171 (,Ff~=;;, 4;, .o ? NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONS[RVAIION APPLICANT IS A/AN ~]Owner I~lOperator [~Lessee [~Municipalit¥/Covemmental Agency [Check as many as apply) Harbor View Realty 750 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppa~ue 5161 724-2500 NY 11768 ~ 516~ 261-7170 N~ $;$768 4 I IOwner lA-rAgen~Contact Person {Check one} Michael P. BontJe/B.T~ir~_ Assoclates~. Inc. 64AILINC ADDRF$S 22% M~In Street POST Of HC£ Northpor~ ~o..~ Suffo~ ~ ~o~. o~.~ Southold ~ w.~ ~uthold POS10III('t STAT[ ZiP CO[)t So~hoZd ~ 11971 Sa_~e basin/Southold Ba_v Show work on map and/or dr,swings [~Yes 7/1/92 8/1/92 structure to be installed; height of dam; size of impoundent, capacit*es of proposed water sources; extent ol distribution system; eec) ~move 8 2-sli' docks & 18 pilings. P~-deck/~e-pile 2 exist~ doc~. A~ float~g doc~ & 18 pil~. Subdivide 30% of ~el to 10 lots, donate 70% of p~cel. Place/extend ~way with~ 100 ~. of ~shwater wetlY. ~sh 30 cortes, exp~ded ~ per ~ of ~uthold ~4 WILL 1111S PROJEC1 REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL, STATE AND/OR LOCAL PERMITS~ ~ Yes ~ No ti yes, please list: ~O ~r ~ Southold trustees wetland approvals 15 CE RTIFICAI ION hereby authorize the agent named in Numbe:(4 v~.~s:~s~: lh~:ppl,cabon on my behalf Febr~ar~ 3, 1992 ~/[ Gen. partner PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE PERMIT ADMiNISTRATOH /12/9~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 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 FEBRUARY q, 1992: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. to perform the environmental review of the proposed subdivision of Harbor View Landing, at a fee of $400.00 for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form; fees to be determined by cost estimate for any further review during the SEQR process; all fees to be paid in full by the applicant before the Planning Board will authorize the consultant to proceed with his review. · Terry O' Southold Town Clerk February 5, 1992 ~0[0 TOWN I~,ANNING 60ARO ,. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 11, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 John J. Raynor, P.E. Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Water Mill, New York 11976 RE: Harbor View Landing SCTMg1000-53-5-12.3 Dear Mr. Raynor: Enclosed please find a copy of the February 4, 1992 resolution by the Southold Town Board engaging your services for review of the above mentioned subdivision. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold~ New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 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 FEBRUARY q, 1992: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. to perform the environmental review of the proposed subdivision of Harbor View Landing, at a fee of $400.00 for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form; fees to be determined by cost estimate for any further review during the SEQR process; all fees to be paid in full by the applicant before the Planning Board will authorize the consultant to proceed with his review. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk February 5, 1992 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNI~ BOARD CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED t~EROER STEINGUT TARNOFF ,~ STERN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 (212) 980-1400 January 31, 1992 Mr. Howard H. Zehner N. Moore's Lane Greenport, New York 11944 Re: Harbor View Realty Co. Dear Mr. Zehner: (212) 838 8587 We are counsel to Harbor View Realty Co. ("Harbor View"). We have recently learned that you, individually and on behalf of Brick Cove Marina or some other person(s), without our client's knowledge or authorization, unilaterally caused Sage Road to be expanded from Route 25, in an easterly fashion, to the roadway leading to the marina you apparently operate. Indeed, we are also informed that in expanding Sage Road you caused timber and soil to be pushed into the wetlands and, in connection therewith, were served summonses by the DEC. In addition, we understand that utility poles may also have been moved in order to expand Sage Road. We hereby demand that you and any persons or entities you are affiliated with, immediately cease and desist from any further expansion of such roadway or other construction or destruction of our client's property. Please be advised that our client reserves all of its rights and remedies under the law to enjoin any such further action and for any damages it has sustained as the result of your wrongful Conduct. I suggest that you or your counsel promptly contact me to confirm that no further work whatsoever will be performed by you on Sage Road or any other portion of our IBERGER STEINGUT TARNOFF & STERN Mr. Howard H. Zehner January 31, 1992 Page 2 client's property and to determine if there is a manner in which we can resolve this matter short of judicial intervention. Very truly yours, David B. Wechsler DBW:lc cc: Brick Cove Marina / Town of Southold Planning Board Mr. Frank C. Barker Harvey Weinig, Esq. BST&$-22238.1 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIAT~ INC. Environmental & Planning ConsuT~ints 54-2 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via ~ Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans ~ Copy of letter [] Change order r~ the following items: [] Samples ~ Specifications THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: REMARKS [] For approval []For your use []As requested [] Forreview and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE COPY TO [ Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19__ ~ Resubmit [] Submit__ [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints SIGNED: [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US B. LAING SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 225 MAIN STREET, NORTHPORT, NY 1176~ 516-261-7170 FAX: 516-261-7454 September 9, 1991 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: ' Harbor View Landing SCTM #1000-053-05-8, 12.3, and 12.4~ Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please find attached a preliminary subdivision application for re-development of that 83.117 acre parcel of land commonly know as the Sage Parcel (and as referenced above). This letter is also accompanied by an application fee of $3,600.00. Such a fee is less than that directly specified for such parcel because it only includes the 25.87 acres to be subdivided. That is, 57.247 acres are offered as conservation lands, if the subdivision obtains a negative declaration under SEQRA. Thus, the resulting, privately held subdivided lands of 25.87 acres will occur in areas currently used for cottage/commer- cial purposes and/or formerly portions of the brick yard. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Michael P. Bontje President JACSAG10/SC APPLICATION POR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the To~vn of $outhold: The undersigned applicant hcrehy ~tl~l>lltts h,,- Ctentative) (final) approval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law and thc Rules and Regulations of the Southold Town Planning Board, and represents and states as follows: The applicant is the owner of record of the land under application. (If the applicant is not the owner of record of the land nnder application, the applicant shall state his tnterest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be .}~?.t%Ql'y.~.e.w...L.a.r~d.~.n9 .............................. 3. The entire land under application is described in Schedule "A" hereto annexed. (Copy of deed suggested.) 4. The land is held by the applicant under deeds recorded in Snffolk County Clerk's office as follo~vs: Liber .... 103313. .............. Page .. Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ....................... : Liber P g On Liber ........................ Page ...................... On ............... ........ Liber'. ................... Page ...................... On .............. ; . . as d~vised under the Last Will and Testament of ....................................... or as distributee ........................................................................ 5. The area of the land is . .03,.1.~? ......... acres. 6. All taxes xvhich are liens on the land at thc date hereof have been paid except ........ ........................................... 7. The land is encumbered by . .Two ....................................................... mortgage (s) as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber . 3.06.42 ....... Page . .~SZ ............. in original amount of $..I~,000.~000.. unpaid amount $ . .,990.,000 .......... held by .o.t.t.i%qh..e.d. ........... .............. ad'dress .............................................................. (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber . .1.0.64¢,. I':,~.. .... ~..3.-.2.6..4 .......... in original amount of . .1.,$00.,.0,(]0.. unpaid amount $.. }~.~0Q,0Q~). ......... held by . .K.ey..8..aB.k. ........... .............. address . 13.7.7. .~0.t. Qr. P.a. rkwa$<,. I $.l.a0Oj.a., .~l..y.,...1~7.8.1$ ............... (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber ........ Page ................ in original amount of .............. unpaid amount $ ................... held by ...................... ...................... address 8. There are no other encumbrances or liens against the land except ...~ .................. 9. The land lies in the £ollowing zoning use districts ~gs.!.cl.a.n.~!.~].-.~.0. ...................... 10. Ho part of the landlies under water ~vhcthcr title water, stream, pond water or otherwise, ex- cept 11.551 acres of tide water included as part of Southold Bay. 11. The applicant shall at his expense install all reqnired public improvements. X 12. The land (does) (does not) lie in a Water District or Water Supply District. Hame of Dis. trict, if witbin a District, is . er.e.e, rlp.0r.t..W~ter .Oistri.c.t. ............................... and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards xvill be installed by . .1.i. sceIl~eit. b~t Haffaorvfew' Realty .................................... and (a) (no) charge will be made for installln~ said lines. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Gas mains will be installed by . ).i.q c..a.n.s.~d.. F.0.qVr.a.c.~q r.s' 9rY?.e.w...R.e. al ty. and(a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. If streets shown on the plat are claimed hv the applicant to be existing public streets in the Suffolk County Highway system, annex' Schedule "B" hereto, to show same. If streets shmvn on the plat are claimed hy the applicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Southold Highway system, annex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land which are not located and shown on the plat. Where the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoining sub- division maps heretofore filed, there ar{: no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. In the course of these proceedings, thc al~pllc:mt will offer proof of title as required by Sec. 331~ of the Real Property La~v. Submit a copy of proposed deed for lots shcm'in~z all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". 22. The applicant estimates tlmt the cost of gt-adiu~ and required public improvements will be $29,9.0.0... as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the · Performance Bond be fixed at . .90~ ......... )'ears. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otberwise shown on Schedule "F". 9/11 DATE 1o 91 Clifford 0.~,General Partner ' \ (Nal ) 391 Great River RD. Great River N.Y. I1730 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ................................. ss: ................................. .................. ~.-~. .......... to me known to be the individual described in and who executed · ......... d he sameO . the foregoing' instrument, and acknoxvled ged --~'~' cute. r ~4 'l~l~13AtqIItlt ...." ~ N~tary Public NfTARY PUBUC, ~lat~ ~f No. 30-451~46 (2ualified in STATI.;i OF' HEW ,*YORK, COUNTY OF ............................ ss :~omrnlsslon On the ................ day ............ of ............ , 19 ...... , before me personally came ....................... to me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that ............ resides at No ..................................................... ............................... that .......................... is the .......... · the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that ............ knows the seal of said corporation; that tbe seal a£fixcd by order of the board of directors of said corporation. and that ............ signed ............. name thereto by like order. Notary Public MORTGAGE NOTE ~2,000,000.00 Groenpor t, N~w Y~k, ptom~ lo pay lo CHAI{LO'rTE SAGE, residing at (No ~) Sage Boulevard, Greenpor~, NY; MICIIA*~L SAGE, residing at 1605 Ee=w~ Boulevard, Gr0unport, NY~ JA~Es SAGE, rest~ing at 519 Sterlin~ Gr~enport. NY; and PATRICIA SAG~ KONDAK, residing at 1607 Augus~ Two Million ($~,000,000.00) ......... Z~[%~ in ~wen~y (20J ~e~- annual principal payments of $100,000,00 on the~ ~ , 1985 and semi-annually thereafter ~ay of ~ymet~.ts. '. · : - pon =ne.sa.me.~ates as above ~rinoi~al IT IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY ,',GREED, t~at the said pHneip&l sum secured by rids note ck.~ T~.G,,.,e duo at t~e optJon o~ *.be holder t~ereol on the happenln$ of an}, def*ult or ~vent by wbic~ under the term~ thu mortg&$e securing this note. said principal sum ma), or Ik~ll bee~me duo end ~y&ble. aisc, tim o[ O:e ~vcn~ts, ~n~tious aud a~ecmcn~ ~n~n~ ~ ~ m~&e ue ~eby mdc ~ o[ ~ttuate~eTown of SouthoJd, County of S~folk and S~a~e of New President PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~ Hiring of Environmental Consultant for Proposed Subdivision of Harbor View Landing SCTM9 1000- 53-5-12.5 February 4, 1991 The Planning Board would like to hire John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c., to proceed with the environmental review for the proposed subdivision of Harbor View Landing. The Planning Board has chosen Mr. Raynor rather than their usual Environmental Consultant, Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, due to a conflict of interest as stated in that firm's letter of January 23, 1992, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Due to the scheduling of the Planning Board's public meeting being before that of the Town Board, and the time constraints under SEQRA, the Planning Board has already sent the application to Mr. Raynor to begin his review. The Planning Board adopted the following resolution at their February 3, 1992 public meeting: BE IT RESOLVED to recommend that the Town Board engage the services of John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c., to perform the environmental review of the Harbor View Landing subdivision proposal at a fee of $400.00 for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and at fees to be determined by cost estimate for any further review during the SEQR process. All fees are to be paid in full by the applicant before the Planning Board will authorize the consultant to proceed with his review. encl. CRAMER, VOORHIS & ~SOCIATES ENV RONMENTAL~At4D .PI,,ANNIblG CONSULTANTS January23,1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Harbor View Landing SCTM 1000-053-8-12.5 Dear Benny: We are in receipt of the lead agency coordination request for the above referenced project. In conducting a preliminary review of the documentation, it has come to our attention that the application is filed in the name of Harborview Realty. This letter is to advise you that a regular client of our firm, Mr. John Barker, is a partner of Harborview Realty. Our office has provided professional environmental consulting services on behalf of Mr. Barker in Long Island Townships other than the Town of Southold. We find it necessary to disclose this matter by bringing it to your attention, and have taken the liberty of providing a carbon copy of this letter to the Town Attorney. Please review this matter to determine if there is any impropriety or potential impropriety in our assisting the Town of Southold in review of this application as a consultant to the Planning Board. At this time we will refrain from conducting any review until this matter is determined. Please call if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. ~.~urs, -Charles J."Voorhis, CEP, AICP cc: Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 516) 331-1455 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 February 4, 1992 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on February 3, 1992: BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board send the environmental assessment form to John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c., for his firm to proceed with the environmental review for the proposed subdivision of Harbor View Landing. The Planning Board has chosen to hire Mr. Raynor rather than their usual Environmental Consultant, Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, due to a conflict of interest as stated in that firm's letter of January 23, 1992, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. The Board has asked Mr. Raynor to complete his review in time for the Planning Board to review his recommendations and to proceed with the SEQR review at the February 24, 1992 public meeting. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett OrlowsKi, or. Chairman enc. cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Assoc. that he would have them today. When we spoke to him this morning, he said that he was working on another project but he would get to this this afternoon and have it to the Planning Board Office. He did. I realize that it was late today but I would like the Board to take this special request into consideration. I understand that his findings were in the negative. I haven't seen his report but, from what he has told my office, his findings were negative and that there would be no environmental impact. In view of that, in that there were no gray areas and it is a very black and white case I would make a special request that the Board vote on it tonight. I realize that it will be delayed for three weeks and it for that reason that I am here. NYNEX is anxious to move ahead with the project, a delay of three weeks will be a cost to them in revenue and also it will be a cost to' the consumers who need this service in Southold Town because I understand that the transmission for a cellular telephone out here is not good because the service is not out here. So, I would request that the Board take this special request into consideration. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I haven't read it yet. Does the Board have any pleasure on this? Mr. Ward: That is our basic problem. We haven't really had a chance to review it. I understand what you are saying but our policy is not to pass on things unless at least we have read them. Ms. Ongioni: Is it lengthy? I haven't seen it. Mr. Orlowski: Neither have we. We just got here at 7:00 p.m.. Shall we hold it until the next meeting. Board: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: O.K.. Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowskl, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to discuss the hiring of an Environmental Consultant for the Harbor View Landing subdivision proposal. We have to send a motion over to the Town Board requesting to hire Mr. John Raynor. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNI~BOARD 21 FEBRUA~3, 1992 (- BE IT RESOLVED to recommend that the Town Board engage the services of John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., p.c., to perform the environmental review of the Harbor View Landing subdivision proposal at a fee of $400.00 for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and at fees to be determined by cost estimate for any further review during the SEQR process. All fees are to be paid in full by the applicant before the Planning Board will authorize the consultant to proceed with his review. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.. Res,~ct fully submitted, ~/~ ~__~y// ~_/Ja~ Roussel.,' ~ecretary Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 February 3, 1992 John J. Raynor Deerfield Green P.O. Box 720 Water Mill, New York 11976 RE: Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing Southold SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Raynor As per your January 31st telephone conversation with Melissa Spiro, the Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form and the Appendix to the Long Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review. The proposed subdivision map is enclosed in the map pocket ok the Appendix. Additional correspondence pertaining to the proposal have also been enclosed for your assistance. The Board would like you to review the information and to prepare your recommendations for a SEQR determination. The Planning Board started the lead agency coordination process on September 20, 1991, subject to receipt of revised maps. The revised maps were submitted on January 15th, and the lead agency coordination request was sent out on January 21st. The Planning Board has received one response to the coordination request from the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is enclosed. Any further responses will be forwarded to your office as they are received. The Board's next public meeting is scheduled for February 24th. Although it is short notice, receipt of your report by February 21st would be appreciated. Please contact our office if you will not be able to meet this deadline. The Planning Board has received payment of the $400.00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Harbor View Landing Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this application, require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro. or Very truly yours, Bennett Or lowski Chairman enc. ~UESTIONS? CALL 800-238-5355 TOLL FREE. From (Your Name) TOW~ OF $OUTt,~LO 5¢UTHOLO fi~l ~J ? CN£CK ONLY ONE BOX Zlp®ZiP¢°de°ISVee~Addre~P~qul'ed 1. ___~ PARCEL I: ALL that certain plot, Title No.S.z.6..~.3..7..?..7. ........ $CHEDUI.F. A(2nd Amendec piece or parcel of land, being at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGLN-NING at a monument set on the Easterly~de of Main Road, (N.Y.S. Route 25) where the same is intersected by the Northerly line of lands as shown on Subdivision of Southold Shores, Suffolk County, file Map Number 3853 RUAININGTHENCE along the Easterly side courses and distances: 1. 2. 3. and of Main Road the following four North 15 degrees 13 minutes 47 seconds East 127.90 feet to a point; North 7 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 677.17 feet to a point; North 12 degrees 23 minutes 13 seconds East 376.45 feet to a point; m RUNNING THENCE along the Long Island Railroad North 42 feet to a p~int; | RU1TNING THENCE along the of James Posillico, Posillico Alexander McBride North 7 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 165.76 feet to a point; Southeasterly line of lands now or formerly o£ degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds East 442.74 South 45 South 55 monument; 3. monument; Southwesterly line of lands now or formerly Construction Co. Inc., Anesthesia Group and the following four courses and distances: degrees 21 minutes 46 seconds East 205.42 feet to a point; degrees 49 minutes 26 seconds East 2735.76 feet to a South 39 degrees and 35 minutes 10 seconds East 1326.69 feet to a -cont.- PARCEL I: cont. 5(/LEDULE A (2nd Amended) 4. South 39 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound; RUA~ING TP/ENCE along the approximate high water mark of Sound the following five tie line courses and distances: 1. South 81 degree~ 29 minutes 38 2. ~orth 74 degrees 33 minutes 18 3. North 66 degrees 24 minutes 48 4. North 70 degrees 42 minutes 04 5. Sout2~ 89 degrees 20 minutes 28 RUNNING 'i'~NCE along a wood bulkhead the following nine courses and distances: and 1. South 31. degrees 18 minutes 45 2. North 64 degrees 3. North 64 degrees 4. North 64 degrees 5. South 76 degrees 6. North 64 degrees 27 minutes 27 7. North 17 degrees 10 minutes 37 8. North 68 degrees 17 minutes 05 9. North 35 232.72 feet to the Shelter Island seconds West 21.81 feet; seconds West 51.30 feet; seconds West 47.68 feet; seconds West 96.13 feet; and seconds West 70.96 feet to a point; RUArNING THENCE along Sound and the "Basin" the the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island following eighteen tie line courses and distances -cont- degrees 02 minutes 49 seconds East 43.24 feet to a point; seconds west 1t.31 feet to a point; 40 minutes 01 seconds West 197.34 feet to a'point; 37 minutes 42 seconds West 380.06 feet to a point; 32 minutes 31 seconds west 289.24 feet to a point~ 09 minutes 50 seconds West 43.85 feet to a point; seconds West 220.43 feet to a point, seconds West 36.68 feet to a point; seconds West 308.25 feet to a point, parcel I cont. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. !31. 14. 15. North North North North North North North South South Title ~' s-693797 (2nd Amended) SCHEDULE A 69 degrees 08 minutes 83 degrees 44 minutes 45 degrees 28 minutes 1 degree 00 seconds East 37.16 feet to a point; 07 seconds East 22.45 feet to a point; t3 seconds East 22.99 feet to a point; 13 minutes 46 seconds East 54.52 feet to a point; 28 minutes 55 seconds West 178.54 feet to a point 30 minutes 56 seconds West 40.19 feet to a point; 19 minutes 26 seconds West 36.31 feet to a point; 38 seconds West 37.59 feet to a point; 33 seconds West 29.58 feet to a point; 18 degrees 31 degrees 67 degrees 70 degrees 40 minutes 27 degrees 53 minutes South 0 degrees 16 minutes 23 South 4 degrees 51 minutes 27 South 3 degrees 07 minutes 36 seconds West 73.63 feet to a point; seconds West 146.85 feet to a point; seconds West 168.58 feet to a point; South 36 ~egrees 26 minutes 28 seconds East 25.57 feet to a point; South 7 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds West 109.75 feet to a point; North 49 degrees 17 minutes 24 seconds West 40.93 feet to a point; 16.. North 2 degrees 17. 18. 15 minutes 32 seconds East 31.60 feet to a point; North 48 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds West 61.23 feet to a point; North 57 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds West 32.07 feet to a point; RUSTLING THENCE along the Easterly and Northerly lines of lands now or formerly of Howard and Dorothy Zehner the following two courses and distances: 1. North 4 degrees 11 minutes and 2. North 80 degrees 27 minutes 12 seconds East 771.06 feet to a point; 08 seconds West 453.84 feet to a point -co~t. i)338 Title ....... PARCEL I -cont.- $C2{EDULEA (2nd Amended) 5. South 12 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West 106.19 feet to the approximate high water mark of the "Basin"; RUNNING THENCE around and through the "basin" the following eight course: and distances: 1. South 65 degrees 08 minutes 2. South 76 degrees 00 minutes now or formerly of Knizak; 3. South 15 degrees 55 minutes now or formerly of Zehner; 4. North 82 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds West 28.71 feet to a point; 5. South 7 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds West 400.00 feet to a point; 6. South 47 degrees 09 minutes 38 seconds East 295.00 feet to a point; 7. South 60 degrees 21 minutes 56 seconds West 197.13 feet to a point; 8. North 46 degrees 59 minutes 20 seconds West 634.24 feet to a point; 22 seconds East .120.99 feet to a point; 38 seconds East 190.94 feet to the land 02 seconds West 166.02 feet to the land RUNNING THENCE along the Northerly line of lands shown on subdivision "SOUTHOLD SHORES" filed map number 3853 North 76 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds West and through a monument 945.33 feet to the easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) at the point or place of BEGINNING. 1. feet to a point; 2. North 61 degrees 29 minutes 58 seconds West 239.75 feet to a point; 3. North 76 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 154.13 feet to a point; 4. North 77 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 218 feet to e point; an RUNNING THENCE along lands now or formerly of William Kilian, Joseph and Marie Knizak, Joseph and Rose Zuda and Murray and Selma Jacobs the following five courses and distances: North 7 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds East 35.83 Title No s-693797 .... PARCEL II: ALL that certain plot, S CI-IEDUL]~ A (Amended) piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and be- ing at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being more particularly bound and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of the herein described premises where same intersects the southeasterly corner of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along Sound and the "Creek" the 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. South 59 degrees South 87 degrees North 77 degrees North 71 degrees North 73 degrees North 68 degrees North 61 degrees North 42 degrees North 26 degrees ?or conveTancing onZy, the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island following twenty-five courses and distances: 14 minutes 14 minutes 03 minutes 42 minutes 51 minutes 04 minutes 00 21 minutes 05 14 minutes 52 01 minutes 22 08 seconds west seconds west seconds west 34 seconds west 49.84 feet to a point; 26 seconds west 60.42 feet to a point; ' 09 seconds west 78.38 feet to a point; 05 seconds west 167.77 feet to a point; 141.22 feet to a point; 237 feet to a point; 198.05 feet to a point; seconds west 90 feet to a point; seconds east 86.77 feet to a point; South 1 degree 13 minutes 04 seconds east 83.96 feet to a point; South 33 degrees 35 minutes 08 seconds east 54.07 feet to a point; North 57 deqrees 10 minutes 41 seconds east 46.76 feet to a point; South 5 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds west 45.15 feet to a point; South 52 degrees 28 minutes 59 seconds east 27.25 feet to a point; North 79 degrees 35 minutes 04 seconds east 112.08 feet to a point; South 19 degrees 14 minutes 31 seconds east 95.11 feet to a point; South 66 degrees 43 minutes 36 seconds east'22.49 feet to a point; -continued- Together with allright, title andinteresto~in andtoanystreetsand rnad~ahuttin~theabnvad~erihed nremi~ tnlh~eentorlln~nerem~ 103 PARCEL II CONTINUED: and 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Title No.....s.7..6.?..3.7..9..7. ..... ScheDULE A North 15 degrees 33 North 35 degrees 59 South 76 degrees 46 minutes 07 seconds east 97.79 feet to a point; minutes 31 seconds east 35.54 feet to a point; minutes 24 seconds east 91.98 feet to a point; South 14 South 36 South 74 North 80 degrees 31 minutes 40 seconds east 68.49 feet to a point; degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds east 84.30 feet to a point; degrees 10 minutes 59 seconds east 72.31 feet to a point; degrees 47 minutes 59 seconds east 80.62 feet to a point; South 58 degrees 18 minutes 46 seconds east 206.98 feet to the 25. southwest corner of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along the southerly line of lands now or formerly of John J. Mu!holland south 80 degrees 36 minutes 55 seconds east 112.80 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. For con~,eyancing only, Together with all right, title and interest of, in and to any streets and RIDER to Mortgage Dated: , 1985. from BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. to CHAP~LOTTE SAGE, Et.al. A) The mortgagor or then owner of the land shall have the privilege to prepay all or part of the principal sum of said mortgage at any time without penalty and with interest to date of payment only; B) The mortgagor shall not be permitted to strip any mining operation from any land covered by the except for normal building operations. any topsoil or conduct lien of this mortgage C) This mortgage shall be immediately due and payable upon title to the mortgaged premises vesting in a par~y other than the mortgagor; except to another corporation of which RICHARD MOHRING is principal officer and shareholder; D) It is agreed by the mortgagor that on the foreclosure of this mort- gage, there shall be included in the computation of the amount due a sum for attorney's fees as well as all disbursements, allowances, costs and legal fees provided by law; E) In the event that any mortgage payment is not made within ten (10) days of the due date, there shall be'assessed a late charge of 2% of the mortgage payment due; F) It is agreed that in the event of a foreclosure by the mortgagee, the per annum rate of interest shall be increased to 15% to be computed from the commencement date of the foreclosure proceeding; G) Mortgagor shall have the right to apply for and obtain from the mortgagee the release or releases of part or parts of the said premises upon the following terms and conditions: · (i) Ail requests for releases shall be upon ten (10) days writ- ten notice to the holder of the mortgage; (ii) That the aforesaid purchase money mortgage shall not be in default; (iii) Tha~ the premises requested to be released, as hereinafter set forth, shall be described by a certified metes and bounds descrip- tion and survey guaranteed by a duly licensed surveyor, copies of which shall be supplied to the mortgagee by the mortgagor withou~ cost~ (iv) That as consideration ~or such release, there shall be paid by the mortgagor to ~he holder of the mortgage, a sum equal to Rider page 2 125~ of the proportionate burden of the mortgage for eachplot to be released. The consideration is to be computed by dividing the area of the mortgaged premises by the area to be released and then multiplyin~ the result by 125% and multiplying the remaining principal by that amount The interest computed on the amount of the consideration for each releas~ from the last interest payment date to the date of the payment of the consideration for such release shall be paid, together with the release consideration; That following the first release, all subsequent releases shall be limited to plots that are contiguous to the plot or plots pre- viously released; (vi) That each release shall be the statutory short form for release of part of mortgaged premises, and the execution of such release shall not affect the mortgage in respect of any portion of the mortgaged premises that is not included in such release or in any prior or subse- quent releases; (vii) That all releases shall be drawn by the attorneys for the mortgagee at the expense of the mortgagor at the rate of One ~undred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars for each release instrument; (viii) That all releases shall include the right, title and inter- est of the mortgagee in and to the land lying in the street in front of the premises released, to the center line thereof, together with right of way to the nearest public highway~ (ix) It is mutually agreed that if a release or releases are requested for part of the mortgaged premises fronting on Peconic Bay, releases for an equivalent area of land located at lea~ five hundred (500) geet from the shoreline of Peconic Bay s~all be applied for simultaneously and the same consideration paid for suck non-waterfront area. H) If required by any governmental agency, or Bureau of the Federal Housing Administration, or Veterans A~inistration, or any lending institution,~the holder of the mortgage will join with the fee owner of the premises in the dedication to the Town of Southold of any improved street built, at mortgagor's sole expense. I) The holder of the mortgage shall release, without charge, and with- out separate consideration, the bed of streets shown on a filed map if required by any governmental authority, provided that a performance bond or other security acceptable to such governmental authority to assure the completion of streets has been filed with such governmental Rider page agency or unit having jurisdiction thereof, and conditioned upon the obtaining of all necessary permits and the constr~ction~ dedication and acceptance of such street; J) Any sums paid on account of principal to obtain releases of parts of mortgaged premises shall not be credited against required amortiza- tion payments, nor shall amortization payments be applied to release consideration; K) The mortgagor does hereby grant to the mortgagee a right of way and street casement over any undedicated roads and streets and over any adjacent land owned by the mortgagor in order to receive access to any unreleased land. This right shall cease upon final payment of the mortgage herein; L) The mortgagor shall obtain fire insurance on all structures in the amount of .eighty (80%) percent of the replacement value with the mort- gagee named in the mortgage clause therein, however, nothing herein or elsewhere in the m~rtgage shall prohibit mortgagor from removing or demolishing cottages once a new development plan has been filed and approved by the governing authorities. Rider to Mortgage between CHARLOTTE SAGE, et al. and BAYVEIW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES 4. South 39 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East 232.72 feet to the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound~ RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound the following five tie line courses and distances: 1. South 8[ degrees 29 minutes 38 seconds West 21.81 feet; 2. North 74 degrees 33 minutes 18 seconds West 51.30 feet; 3. North 66 degrees 24 minutes 48 seconds West 47.68 feet; 4. North 70 degrees 42 minutes 04 seconds West 96.13 feet; and 5. South 89 degrees 20 minutes 28 seconds West 70.96 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along distances: a wood bulkhead the following nine courses and 1. South 31 degrees 18 minutes 45 seconds West 2. North 64 degrees 40 minutes 01 seconds West 3. North 64 degrees 37 minutes 42 seconds West 4. North 64 degrees 32 minutes 31 seconds West 5. South 76 degrees 09 minutes 50 seconds West 6. North 64 degrees 27 minutes 27 seconds West 7. North 17 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds West 8. North 68 degrees 17 minutes 05 seconds West and 9. North 35 degrees 02 minutes 49 seconds East 11.31 feet to a point; 197.34 feet to a point; 380.06 feet to a point; 289.24 feet to a point; 43.85 feet to a point; 220.43 feet to a point; 36.68 feet to a point; 308.25 feet to a point; 43.24 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound and the "Basin" the following eighteen tie line courses and distances~ ~ 1. North 2. North 3. North 4. North 5. North 6. North 7. North 8. South 9. South L0. South 11. South 12. South 69 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East 37.16 feet to a point; 83 degrees 44 minutes 07 seconds East 22.45 feet to a point; 45 degrees 28 minutes 13 seconds East 22.99 feet to a point; 1 degree 13 minutes 46 seconds East 54.52 feet to a point; 18 degrees 28 minutes 55 seconds West 178.54 feet to a Ioint; 31 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds West 40.19 feet to a point; 67 degrees 19 minutes 26 seconds West 36~31 feet to a point; 70 degrees 40 minutes 58 seconds West 37.59 feet to a point; 27 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West 29.58 feet to a point; 0 degrees 16 minutes 23 seconds West 73.63 feet to a point; 4 degrees 51 minutes 27 seconds West 146.85 feet to a point; 3 degrees 07 minutes 36 secoads West 168.58 feet to a olnt; -cont.- Rider to Mortgage Page 2 Description of Premises' South 36 degrees 26 minutes 28 seconds East 25.57 feet to a point; 14. South 7 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds West 10~.75 feet to a point; 15. North 49 degrees 17 minutes 24 seconds West 40.93 feet to a point; 16. North 2 degrees 15 minutes 32 seconds East 31.60 feet to a point; 17. North 48 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds West 61.23 feet to a point; and 18. North 57 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds West 32.07 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the Easterly and Northerly lines of lands now or formerly of Howard and Dorothy Zehner the following two courses and distances: 6 7 8. 9. L0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 116. 1. North 4 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds East 771.06 feet to a point; and 2. North 80 degrees 27 minutes 08 seconds West 453.84 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along lands now or formerly of William Kilian, Joseph and Marie Knizak, Joseph and Rose Zuda and Murray and Selma Jacobs ~he following five courses and distances: " 1. North 7 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds East 35.83 feet to a point; 2. North 61 degrees 29 minutes 58 seconds West 239.75 feet to a point; 3. North 76 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds Wes~ 154.13 feet to a point; 4. North 77 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 218 feet to a point; and 5. South 12 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West 106.19 feet to the approximate high water mark of the "Basin"; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of the "Basin" the following t{~enty-three tie line courses and distances: North North North South North North South South South South South South South South South South 53 degrees 81 degrees 69 degrees 77 degrees 84 degrees 65 degrees 30 minutes 39 minutes 06 minutes 32 minutes 55 minutes 57 minutes 11 seconds West 02 seconds West 55 seconds West 28 seconds West 15 seconds West 15 seconds West 32.97 feet to a point; 91.68 feet to a point; 144.84 feet to a point; 85.62 feet to a point; 46.29 feet to a point; 61.09 feet to a polnt; 78 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 90.31 feet to a point; 25 degrees 15 minutes 03 seconds West 96.05 feet to a point; 3 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds West 107.58 feet to a point; 14 degrees 30 minutes 58 seconds West 42.56 feet to a point; 1 degrees29 minutes 18 seconds West 51.75 feet to a point; 31 degrees 47 minutes 24 seconds East 55.37 feet to a point; 54 degrees 31 minutes 33 seconds East 43.32 feet to a point; 70 degrees 35 minutes 52 seconds East 58.24 feet to a point; 44 degrees 03 minutes 17 seconds East 47.42 feet to a point; 38 degrees 03 minutes 53 seconds East 46.81 feet to a point; -cont.-- Rider to Mortgage Page 3 Description of Premises 17 18 19 2O 22 and 23. South 74 degrees South 40 degrees South 35 degrees South 30 degrees South 79 degrees South 65 degrees 21 minutes 02 seconds East 56.14 5i minutes 45 seconds East 62.14 14 minutes 07 seconds East 64.61 47 minutes 59 seconds East 18.09 55 minutes 17 seconds East 47.45 45 minutes 22 seconds West 19.34 North 76 degrees 27 minutes 07 seconds West feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; 17.63 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the Northerly line of lands shown on subdivision "Southold Shores" filed map number 3853 north 76 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds Wes~ and through a monument 945.33 feet to the Easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) at the point or place of BEGINNING. PARCEL II: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, being more particularly bound and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of the herein described premises where same intersects the southeasterly corner of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound and' the "Creek" the following twenty-five courses and distances: 1. South 2. South 3. North 4. North 5. North 6. North 7. North 8. North 9. North 10. South 11. South 12. North 13. South 14. South 15. North 16. South ~17. South 118. North 59 degrees 87 degrees 77 degrees 71 degrees 73 degrees 68 degrees 61 degrees 14 minutes 14 minutes 03 minutes 42 minutes 51 minutes 04 minutes 21 minutes 34 Seconds west 26 seconds west 09 seconds west 05 seconds west 08 seconds west 00 seconds west 05 seconds west 49.84 feet to a point; 60.42 feet to a point; 78.38 feet to a point; 167.77 feet to a point; 141.22 feet to a point; 237 feet to a point; 198.05 feet to a point; 42 degrees 14 minutes 52 seconds west 90 feet to a point; 26 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds east 86.77 feet to a point; 1 degree 13 minutes 04 seconds east 83.96 feet to a point; 33 degrees 35 minutes 08 seconds east 54.07 feet to a point; 57 degrees 10 minutes 41 seconds east 46.76 feet to a point; 5 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds west 45.15 feet to a point; 52 degrees 28 minutes 59 seconds east 27.25 feet to a point; 79 degrees 35 minutes 04 seconds east 112.08 feet to a point; 19 degrees 14 minutes 31 seconds east 95.11 feet to a point, 66 degrees 43 minutes 36 seconds east 22.49 feet to a point; 15 degrees 33 minutes 07 seconds east 97.79 feet to a point; -cont.- Riaer to Mortgage '~age. 4 Description of Premises 19. North 35 degrees 59 minutes 31 20. South 76 degrees 46 minutes 24 21. South 14 degrees 31 .minutes 40 22. South 36 degrees 35 minutes 53 23. South 74 degrees 10 minutes 59 24. North 80 degrees 47 minutes 59 and 25. South 58 degrees southwest corner seconds east 35.54 feet to a point; seconds east'91.98 feet to a pofnt; seconds east 68.49 feet to a point; seconds east 84.30 feet to a point; seconds east 72.31 feet to a point; seconds east 80.62 feet to a point; 18 minutes 46 seconds east 206.98 feet to the of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along the southerly line of lands now or formerly of John J. Mulholland south 80 degrees 36 minutes 55 seconds east 112.80 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. Sellers are conveying all lands now owned by them at this location and have not retained any strips, gores or other pieces of land which would interfere with purchaser's access to the public highway or the waterfront CRAMER, VOORHIS, &;ASSOCIATES ENV RONMENTAL. ~/~X-~D~ :.?r,',EA~I~G CONSULTANTS January23,1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Harbor View Landing SCTM 1000-053-8-12.5 Dear Benny: We are in receipt of the lead agency coordination request for the above referenced project. In conducting a preliminary review of the documentation, it has come to our attention that the application is filed in the name of Harborview Realty. This letter is to advise you that a regular client of our firm, Mr. John Barker, is a partner of Harborview Realty. Our office has provided professional environmental consulting services on behalf of Mr. Barker in Long Island Townships other than the Town of Southold. We find it necessary to disclose this matter by bringing it to your attention, and have taken the liberty of providing a carbon copy of this letter to the Town Attorney. Please review this matter to determine if there is any impropriety or potential impropriety in our assisting the Town of Southold in review of this apphcation as a consultant to the Planning Board. At this time we will refrain from conducting any review until this matter ii determined. Please call if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. CC: Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 516) 331-1455 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE This letter responds to your communication of'J-//,.~' f!~'~/ , 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: DEC Permits (if any): DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: ~] Type I [ ] Unlisted DEC Position: Based on the information provided: [ ] DEC 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 inform,a}~ion in or.der to respond (see comments). DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action. Comments: [ ] see attached [ ] none If you do not concnr with the DEC position indicated above, please contact this office to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under Part 617. CC: Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. (attach distribution list) i TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTER-OFFICE SPEED MEMO (USE ONLY FOR UNOFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE) DA~E: DATE RETURNED: ?~,.,, &ad oo.~.,.,d,.., ,,'eou. e~/- - Z~7. REPLY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the p~oposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: ()<) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: (516)-765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (~<) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other. ( See comments below). Please feel free to contact this office for further information. cc: ~ ~Board of Trustees ~,,~l~n~'pepartment ~Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services ~NYSDEC - Stony Brook ~NYSDEC - Albany S.C. Dept of Public [~©rks N.Y.S. Dept_ ~f Transportatio~ * Maps are enclosed for your.~cview Coordinating agencies Cramer, Voorhis & Assoc., Inc. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 7654938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Rom: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 · Fax (516) 765-1823 October 1, 1991 Michael P. Bontje, President B. Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Major Subdivision of Harbor View Landing Sage Boulevard, Greenport SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 30, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type I action subject to receipt of revised maps. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. z~v~ Chairman 800 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 724-6333 December 18,1991 Town of Southold,Tow~ Hall Planing Board 55095 Main Rd. Southold,N.Y.11971 ATT: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Re:Harbor View Landing Sage Blvd. Greenport,N.Y. Dear Mr. Orlowski; I am writing to you with an offering for the Town of Southold in conjuction with our ongoing project. We are looking forward to making a donation of the marjority of'our site for the preservation purposes. Our project seeks to develop th~ eastern enG of the site, with some concessions fromthe Planing and Town Boards on lot size and setbacks. We seek to develop 10 lots on 16+ acres an additional almost 7 acres held by the Home Owners Association for recreation,an additional 6+ acres for the roadways and associated ~rainage. The areas we propose to donate,include such features as over 800 L.F. of harbor shoreline, several fresh water ponds, extensive fresh water and salt water wetlands, the marjority o~ the parcel is for- ested, additionaly there is over 1,200 L.F. of frontage on Main Rd. The total acerage is 55,883 acres or nearly 65% of our total site. What we seek from our donation is the knowledge that we have helped to preserve this portion of Southold's natural beauty and to garner approval of our subdivision. Our only stipulation is that we are en- abled to take maximum value for the donation. I have prepared a small s~ca~t~e.~total parcel to assist you in evalvating the donation. Should you~~o meet for further information or a full presensation please calI~ Cliff/o~d Rudolph ~/ -- Gen6r/~l Partner CR:mr PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'I~F L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 September 24, 1991 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: In confirmation of the September 19, 1991 meeting with Valerie Scopaz and Melissa Spiro, which was held at your request, please note the following: The following information is either missing from the application, or must be clarified on the subdivision map: 1. A letter from the owner of the property authorizing you to act as his agent throughout the subdivision process 2. A deed description of the property; 3. The zone of the property must be indicated on the map; 4. The name of the owner(s) of the property must be indicated on the map; 5. The map must be signed and sealed by the preparer; The tax map number must be clarified. It appears that the Real Property number has changed. (It was decided at the meeting that the parcel would be referenced by the new number (1000-53-5-12.5)); Page 2 Harbor View Landing September 24, 1991 7. The name of the subdivision must be clarified (i.e. Harbor View Realty, Harbor View Landing...) You agreed to submit the above mentioned information prior to the Planning Board's September 30th meeting. It was discussed that the SEQRA process would be initiated by the Planning Board on September 30, 1991. You questioned that the Planning Board had already taken Lead Agency on the previous application and therefore, the Planning Board did not need to take Lead Agency again. It was decided, that the process would be started again, since the revised map would necessitate a new coordination process. However, you were assured that the Planning Board would assume Lead Agency status on the project. You were advised to submit a letter to the Town Board acknowledging that you were offering portions of the parcel for dedication to the Town. It was also suggested that you start the application process for all permits required prior to subdivision approval (Trustee, DEC, Health Department, etc.). As mentioned above, the Planning Board awaits the above mentioned information. Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ,// '~£ Chairman B. LAING SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 225 MAIN STREET, NORTHPORT, NY 11768 516-261-7170 FAX: 516-261-7454 September 9, 1991 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Harbor View Landinq SCTM #1000-053-05-8, 12.3, and 12.4 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please find attached a preliminary subdivision application for re-development of that 83.117 acre parcel of land commonly know as the Sage Parcel (and as referenced above). This letter is also accompanied by an application fee of $3,600.00. Such a fee is less than that directly specified for such parcel because it only includes the 25.87 acres to be subdivided. That is, 57.247 acres are offered as conservation lands, if the subdivision obtains a negative declaration under SEQRA. Thus, the resulting, privately held subdivided lands of 25.87 acres will occur in areas currently used for cottage/commer- cial purposes and/or formerly portions of the brick yard. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Michael P. Bontje President JACSAG10/SC SOU rHOLD l'OV,'N PLAI']NING BOA,RD, ....... ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS January23,1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Harbor View Landing SCTM 1000-053-8-12.5 Dear Benny: We are in receipt of the lead agency coordination request for the above referenced project. In conducting a preliminary review of the documentation, it has come to our attention that the application is filed in the name of Harborview Realty. This letter is to advise you that a regular client of our firm, Mr. John Barker, is a partner of Harborview Realty. Our office has provided professional environmental consulting services on behalf of Mr. Barker in Long Island Townships other than the Town of Southold. We find it necessa.r7 to disclose this matter by bringing it to your attention, and have taken the liberty of providtng a carbon copy of this letter to the Town Attorney. Please review this matter to determine if there is any impropriety or potential impropriety in our assisting the Town of Southold in review of this apphcation as a consultant to the Planning Board. At this time we will refrain from conducting any review until this matter is determined. Please call if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. Ve ryJ, mJ,yy, pur s, --Charles J.~Voorhis, CEP, AICP CC' Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation gold Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE ~CT~ 't+ lotto -5".~ --.5'-/2 This letter responds to your communication of']-f/,~ //~'/ , regarding lead agency coordination for the above-noted project, under Articie $ (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Department has the following interest in this project: DEC Permits (if any): DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: ~(] Type I [ ] Unlisted DEC Position: Based on the information provided: [ ] DEC 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). Oleose ,See. ¢ ec' A e cl DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action. Comments: [ ] see attached [ ] none 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. CC: Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. ~ely~ 14001 (8~87) 30a ~. NFW YORK STATF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGUEATORY AFFAIRS TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTER-~FICE SPEED MEMO (USE ONLY FOR UNOFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE) DATE: DATE RETURNED: ,.5O T~ ~./_r')oO -5-3- z -/z.,r' REPLY AT BOTTOM OF THIS FORM io leo~e ~e f c~ me ~ GiG 7r/- REPLY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairraan George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD January 22, 1992 SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Review of EAF Harbor View Landing SCTM9 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Cramer and Mr. Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board referred the Environmental Assessment Form for the above mentioned subdivision to your office for review under separate cover. The Planning Board has received the $400.00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. // ~ '~ Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the p~oposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: %CTm~looo- ~3-5-~ Requested Action: SEQRA Classification: ()<) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: (516)-765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (~<) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other. ( See comments below). Please feel free to contact this office for further information. cc: ~ WBoard of Trustees ~ Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services ~NYSDEC - Stony Brook ~NYSDEC - Albany £.C. Dept. of P,,b!ic W~rk~ * Maps are enclosed for your_~eview Coordinating agencies Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1t79 Southold, New York 11971 'Fax (516) 765-1823 October 1, 1991 Michael P. Bontje, President B. Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Major Subdivision of Harbor View Landing Sage Boulevard, Greenport SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 30, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type I action subject to receipt of revised maps. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. MS Chairman SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM~: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER pARCEL I: ALL that certain plot, Title I~ o .s.E.6..9. ~3.9.! ........ $CHEDUI.E A(2nd Amendec piece or parcel of land, RUN~INGTH~NCE along the Easterly side courses and distances: 1. 2. 3. and of Main Road the following four North 15 degrees 13 minutes 47 seconds East 127.90 feet to a point; North 7 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 677.17 feet to a point; North 12 degrees 23 minutes 13 seconds East 376.45 feet to a point; 4. North 7 degrees 21 minutes 28 seconds East 165.76 feet to a point; RUSTNING T~J~CE along the Southeasterly line of lands now or formerly o~ Long Island Railroad North 42 degrees 20 minutes feet to a point; RUATNING THENCE along the of James Posi!lico, Posil!ico Alexander McBride monument; 3. monument; South 45 South 55 Southwesterly line of Construction Co. Inc., South 39 degrees and 23 seconds East 442.74 lands now or formerly Anesthesia Group and the following four courses and distances: degrees 21 minutes 46 seconds East 205.42 feet to a point; degrees 49 minutes 26 seconds East 2735.76 feet to a 35 minutes 10 seconds East 1326.69 feet to a -cont.- being at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being more particularly bounded and described aa follows: BEGIATNING at a monument set on the Easterly ~de of Main Road, (N.Y.S. Route 25) where the same is intersected by the Northerly line of lands as shown on Subdivision of Southold Shores, Suffolk County, file Map Number 3853 SOUTHOLD TOW5 10335 PA'RCEL I: cont. 4. South 39 degrees Tit. Je N^ S-693797 SC}iED~q.F. A (2nd Amended) 35 minutes 10 seconds East 232.72 feet to the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound; RUI~ING 'k~iENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Sound the following five tie line courses and distances: South 81 degrees 29 minutes 38 seconds West North 74 degrees 33 minutes 18 seconds West North 66 degrees 24 minutes 48 seconds West 21.81 feet; 51.30 feet; 47.68 feet; North 70 degrees 42 minutes 04 seconds West 96.13 feet; and 2. 3. 4. 5. RUSTNING 'I'kU~NCE distances: 1. South 31 degrees 2. North 64 degrees 3. North 64 degrees 4. North 64 degrees 5. South 76 degrees 6. North 64 degrees 7. North 17 degrees 8. North 68 degrees and Island Sound South 89 degrees 20 minutes 28 seconds West 70.96 feet to a point; along a wood bulkhead the following nine courses and 18 minutes 45 seconds West 40 minutes 01 seconds West 37 minutes 42 seconds West 32 minutes 31 seconds West 1t.31 feet to a point; 197.34 feet to a'point. 380.06 feet to a point~ 289.24 feet to a point. 09 minutes 27 minutes 27 seconds West 10 minutes 37 seconds West 17 minutes 05 seconds West 50 seconds West 43.85 feet to a point; 220.43 feet to a point. 36.68 feet to a point; 308.25 feet to a point. 9. North 35 degrees 02 minutes 49 seconds East 43.24 feet to a point; RUbrNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island and the "Basin" the following eighteen tie line courses and distances -cont- parcel I cont. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. !3~ · 14. 15. Title N~ 5-693797 (2nd Amended) SCHEDt~.E A North 69 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds North 83 degrees 44 minutes 07 seconds North 45 degrees 28 minutes 13 seconds North 1 degree 13 minutes 46 seconds East 54.52 feet to North 18 degrees 28 minutes 55 seconds West 178.54 feet North 31 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds West 40.19 feet to s North 67 degrees 19 minutes 26 seconds West 36.31 feet to a East 37.16 feet to a East 22.45 feet to a East 22.99 feet to a point; point; point; a point; to a point. point; point; South 70 degrees 40 minutes 38 seconds West 37.59 feet to a point; South 27 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West 29.58 feet to a point; South 0 degrees 16 minutes South 4 degrees 51 minutes South 3 degrees 07 minutes 23 seconds West 73.63 feet to a point; 27 seconds West 146.85 feet to a point; 36 seconds West 168.58 feet to a point; South 36 degrees 26 minutes 28 seconds East 25.57 feet to a point; South 7 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds West 109.75 feet to a point; North 49 degrees 17 minutes 24 seconds West 40.93 feet to a point; 16.. North 2 degrees 15 minutes 17. 18. 32 seconds East 31.60 feet to a point; North 48 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds West 61.23 feet to a point; North 57 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds West 32.07 feet to a point; RU~-NING THENCE along the Easterly and Northerly lines of lands now or formerly of Howard distances: 1. North 4 degrees 1! minutes and 2. North 80 degrees 27 minutes and Dorothy Zehner the following two courses and 12 seconds East 771.06 feet to a point; 08 seconds West 453.84 feet to a point -co~. Title No..S..7..6.?..3..7.17. ....... PARCEL I -cont. - RUNI{ING THENCE a long and Marie Knizak, Joseph and Rose zuda following five courses and distances: 1. North 7 degrees 43 minutes 02 2. North 61 degrees 29 minutes SCHEDULE A (2nd Amended) lands now or formerly of William Ki!ian, Joseph and Murray and Selma Jacobs the 3. North 76 degrees 56 minutes 4. North 77 degrees 56 minutes seconds 58 seconds West 239.75 38 seconds West 154.13 5. South 12 degrees 03 minutes approximate high water mark of the RUNNING THENCE around and through the "basin" and distances: 1. South 65 degrees 08 minutes 2. South 76 degrees 00 minutes now or formerly of Knizak; 3. South 15 degrees 55 minutes now or formerly of Zehner; 4. North 82 degrees 5. South 7 degrees 6. South 47 degrees 7. South 60 degrees 8. North 46 degrees RUNNING THENCE along East 35.83 feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; 38 seconds West 218 feet to a point; an 32 seconds West 106.19 ~eet to the "Basin"; the following eight course~ 22 seconds East 120.99 feet to a point; 38 seconds East 190.94 feet to the land 02 seconds West 166.02 feet to the land 16 minutes 58 seconds West 28.71 feet to a point; 43 minutes 02 seconds West 400.00 feet to a point; 09 minutes 38 seconds East 295.00 feet to a point; 21 minutes 56 seconds West 197.13 feet to a point; 59 minutes 20 seconds West 634.24 feet to a point; the Northerly line of lands shown on subdivision "SOUTHOLD SHORES" filed map number 3853 North 76 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds West and through a monument 945.33 feet to the easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) at the point or place of BEGINNING. Title No S-.6.93797 PARCEL II: ALL that certain plot, (Amended) piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and be- ing at Arshamomaque, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State o'f New York, being more particularly bound and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of the herein described premises where same intersects the southeasterly corner of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along Sound and the "Creek" the 1. South 59 degrees 2. South 87 degrees 3. North 77 degrees 4. North 71 degrees 5. North 73 degrees 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. North 68 degrees North 61 degrees North 42 degrees North 26 degrees For conveyancing only, the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island following twenty-five courses and distances: 14 minutes 34 seconds west 49.84 feet to a point; 14 minutes 03 minutes 42 minutes 51 minutes 04 minutes 21 minutes 05 14 minutes 52 01 minutes 22 26 seconds west 60.42 feet to a point; ' 09 seconds west 78.38 feet to a point; 05 seconds west 167.77 feet to a point; 08 seconds west 141.22 feet to a point; 00 seconds west 237 feet to a point; seconds west 198.05 feet to a point; seconds west 90 feet to a point; seconds east 86.77 feet to a point; South 1 degree 13 minutes 04 seconds east 83.96 feet to a point; South 33 degrees 35 minutes 08 seconds east 54.07 feet to a point; North 57 deqrees 10 minutes 41 seconds east 46.76 feet to a point; South 5 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds west 45.15 feet to a point; South 52 degrees 28 minutes 59 seconds east 27.25 feet to a point; North 79 degrees 35 minutes 04 seconds east 112.08 feet to a point; South 19 degrees 14 minutes 31 seconds east 95.11 feet to a point; South 66 degrees 43 minutes 36 seconds east 22.49 feet to a point; -continued- Together with allright, titleandintereatof, in andtoanystreetsand .0338 ;245 PARCEL II CONTINUED: Title No....~c9.~Z~ ..... $t'TAEDULE A 18. North 15 degrees 33 minutes 07 seconds east 97.79 19. North 35 degrees 59 minutes 31 seconds east 35.54 20. South 76 degrees 46 minutes 24 seconds east 91.98 21. South 14 degrees 31 minutes 40 seconds east 68.49 22. South 36 degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds east 84.30 23. South 74 degrees 10 minutes 59 seconds east 72.31 24. North 80 degrees 47 minutes 59 seconds east 80.62 and 25. feet to a point; feet to a polnt; feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; feet to a point; South 58 degrees 18 minutes 46 seconds east 206.98 feet to the southwest corner of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along the southerly line of lands now or formerly of John J. Mulholland south 80 degrees 36 minutes 55 seconds east 112.80 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. For conveyancing only, / Together with all right, title and interest of, in and to any streets and RIDER to Mortgage Dated: , 1985. from BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP. to CHARLOTTE SAGE, Et.al. A) The mortgagor or then owner of the land shall have the privilege to prepay all or part of the principal sum of said mortgage at any time without penalty and with interest to date of payment only~ B) The mortgagor shall not be permitted to strip any topsoil or conduct any mining operation from any land covered by the lien of this mortgage except for normal building operations~ C) This mortgage shall be immediately due and payable upon title to the mortgaged premises vesting in a party other than the mortgagor; except to another corporation of which RICHARD MOHRING is principal officer and shareholder; D) It is agreed by the mortgagor that on the foreclosure of this mort- gage, there shall be included in the computation of the amount due a sum for attorney's fees as well as all disbursements, allowances, costs and legal fees provided by law; E) In the event that any mortgage payment is not made within ten (10) days of the due date, there shall be assessed a late charge of 2% of the mortgage payment due; F) It is agreed that in the event of a foreclosure by the mortgagee, the per annum~rate of interest shall be increased to 15% to be computed from the commencement date of the foreclosure proceeding; G) Mortgagor shall have the right to apply for and obtain from the mortgagee the release or releases of part or parts of the said premises upon the following terms and conditions: · (i) Ail requests for releases shall be upon ten (10) days writ- ten notice to the holder of the mortgage; (ii) That the a£oresaid purchase money mortgage shall not be in default; (iii) That the premises requested to be released, as hereinafter set forth, shall be described by a certified metes and bounds descrip- tion and survey guaranteed by a duly licensed surveyor, copies of which shall be supplied to the mortgagee by the mortgagor without cost.' (iv) That as consideration for such release, there shall be paid by the mortgagor to the holder of the mortgage, a sum equal to Rider page 2 12~ of the proportionate burden of the mortgage for eachplot to be released. The consideration is to be computed by dividing the area of the mortgaged premises by the area to be released and then multiplyin~ the result by 125% and multiplying the remaining principal by that amoun~ The interest computed on the amount of the consideration for each releas~ from the last interest payment date to'the date of the payment of the consideration for such release shall be paid, together with the release consideration; That following the first release, shall be limited to plots that are contiguous viously released; all subsequent releases to the plot or plots pre- (vi) That each release shall be the statutory short form for release of part of mortgaged premises, and the execution of such release shall not affect the mortgage in respect of any portion of the m~rtgaged premises that is not included in such release or in any prior or subse- quent releases; (vii) That all releases shall be drawn by the attorneys for the mortgagee at the expense of the mortgagor at the rate of One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars for each release instrument; (viii) That all releases shall include the right, title and inter- est of the mortgagee in and to the land lying in the street in front of the premises released, to the center line thereof, together with right of way to the nearest public highway~ (ix) It is mutually agreed that if a release or releases are requested for part of the mortgaged premises fronting on Peconic Bay, releases for an equivalent area of land located at leas~ five hundred (500) geet from the shoreline of Peconic Bay s~all be applied for simultaneously and the same consideration paid for such non-waterfront area. H) If required by any governmental agency, or Bureau of the Federal Housing Administration, or Veterans A~inistration, or any lending institution,~the holder of the mortgage will join with the fee owner of the premi~s in the dedication to the Town of Southold of any improve( street built,.at mortgagor's sole expense. I) The holder of the mortgage shall release, without charge, and with- out separate consideration, the bed of streets shown on a filed map if required by any governmental authority, provided that a performance bond or other security acceptable to such governmental authority to assure the completion of streets has been filed with such governmental Rider page agency or unit having jurisdiction obtaining of all necessary permits acceptance of such street~ thereof, and conditioned upon the and the constr~ction~ dedication and J) Any sums paid on account of principal to obtain releases of parts of mortgaged premises shall not be credited against required amortiza- tion payments, nor shall amortization payments be applied to release consideration; K) The mortgagor does hereby grant to the mortgagee a right of way and street easement over any undedicated roads and streets and over any adjacent land owned by the mortgagor in order to receive access to any unreieased land. This right shall cease upon final payment of the mortgage herein; L) The mortgagor shall obtain fire insurance on all structures in the amount of .eighty (80%) percent of the replacement value with the mort- gagee named in the mortgage clause therein, however, nothing herein or elsewhere in the mortgage shall prohibit mortgagor from removing or demolishing cottages once a new development plan has been filed and approved by the governing authorities. Rider to Mortgage between CHARLOTTE SAGE, et al. and BAYVEIW REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES 4. South 39 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East 232.72 feet to the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound the following five tie line courses and distances: 1. South 8~ degrees 29 minutes 38 seconds West 21.81 feet; 2. North 74 degrees 33 minutes 18 seconds West 51.30 feet; 3. North 66 degrees 24 minutes 48 seconds West 47.68 feet; 4. North 70 degrees 42 minutes 04 seconds West 96.13 feet; and 5. South 89 degrees 20 minutes 28 seconds West 70.96 feet to a point; RUNNING TI{ENCE along distances: a wood bulkhead the following nine courses and 1. South 31 degrees 18 minutes 45 seconds West 2. North 64 degrees 40 minutes 01 seconds West 3. North 64 degrees 37 minutes 42 seconds West 4. North 64 degrees 32 minutes 31 seconds West 5. South 76 degrees 09 minutes 50 seconds West 6. North 64 degrees 27 minutes 27 seconds West 7. North 17 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds West 8. North 68 degrees 17 minutes 05 seconds West and 9. North 35 degrees 02 minutes 49 seconds East 11.31 feet to a point; 197.34 feet to a point; 380.06 feet to a point; 289.24 feet to a point; 43.85 feet to a point; 220.43 feet to a point; 36.68 feet to a point; 308.25 feet to a point; 43.24 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound and the "Basin" the following eighteen tie line courses and distances; ~ 1. North 69 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East 37.16 feet to a point; 2. North 83 degrees 44 minutes 07 seconds East 22.45 feet to a point; 3. North 45 degrees 28 minutes 13 seconds East 22.99 feet to a point; 4. North 1 degree 13 minutes 46 seconds East 54.52 feet to a point; 5. North 18 degrees 28 minutes 55 seconds West 178.54 feet to a point; 6. North 31 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds West 40.19 feet to a point; 7. North 67 degrees 19 minutes 26 seconds West 36531 feet to a point; 8. South 70 degrees 40 minutes ~8 seconds West 37.59 feet to a point; 9. South 27 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West 29.58 feet to a point; 10. South 0 degrees 16 minutes 23 seconds West 73.63 feet to a point; 11. South 4 degrees 51 minutes 27 seconds West 146.85 feet to a point; 12. South 3 degrees 07 minutes 36 secoads West 168.58 feet to a point; -cont.- Rider to Mortgage Page 2 Description of Premises' .3. 14. 15. 16. 17. and 18. South 36 degrees 26 minutes 28 seconds East 25.57 feet to a point; South 7 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds West 10~.75 feet to a point; North 49 degrees 17 minutes 24 seconds West 40.93 feet to a point; North 2 degrees 15 minutes 32 seconds East 31.60 feet to a point; North 48 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds West 61.23 feet to a point; North 57 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds West 32.07 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the Easterly and Northerly lines of lands now or formerly of Howard and Dorothy Zehner the following two courses and distances: 1. North and 2. North 4 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds East 771.06 feet to a point; 80 degrees 27 minutes 08 seconds West 453.84 feet to a point; RUNNING T~ENCE along lands now or formerly of William Kilian, Joseph and Marie Knizak, Joseph and Rose Zuda and Murray and Selma Jacobs the following five courses and distances: " 1. North 7 degrees 43 minutes 02 seconds East 35.83 feet to a point; 2. North 61 degrees 29 minutes 58 seconds West 239.75 feet to a point; 3. North 76 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds Wes~ 154.13 feet to a point; 4. North 77 degrees 56 minutes 38 seconds West 218 feet to a point; and 5. South 12 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West 106.19 feet to the approximate high water mark of the "Basin"; RUNNING THE~{CE along the approximate high water mark of the "Basin" the following t{$enty-three tie line courses and distances: 1. North 2. North 3. North 4. South 5. North 6. North 7. South 8. South . 9. South 10. South 11. South 12. South 13. South 14. South 15. South 116. South 53 degrees 30 minutes 11 seconds West 81 degrees 39 minutes 02 seconds West 69 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds West 77 degrees 32 minutes 28 seconds West 84 degrees 55 minutes 15 seconds West 65 degrees 57 minutes 15 seconds West 32.97 feet to a point; 91.68 feet to a point; 144.84 feet to a point; 85.62 feet to a point; 46.29 feet to a point; 61.09 feet to a point; 78 degrees 51 minutes 55 seconds West 90.31 feet to a point; 25 degrees 15 minutes 03 seconds West 96.05 feet to a point; 3 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds West 107.58 feet to a point; 14 degrees 30 minutes 58 seconds West 42.56 feet to a point; 1 degree~29 minutes 18 seconds West 51.75 feet to a point; 31 degrees 47 minutes 24 seconds East 55.37 feet to a point; 54 degrees 31 minutes 33 seconds East 43.32 feet to a point; 70 degrees 35 minutes 52 seconds East 58.24 feet to a point; 44 degrees 03 minutes 17 seconds East 47.42 feet to a point; 38 degrees 03 minutes 53 seconds East 46.81 feet to a point; -cont.-- [ider to Mortgage Page 3 Description of Premises 17. South 74 degrees 21 minutes 02 seconds East 18. South 40 degrees 51 minutes 45 seconds East 19. South 35 degrees 14 minutes 07 seconds East 20. South 30 degrees 47 minutes 59 seconds East 21. South 79 degrees 55 minutes 17 seconds East 22. South 65 degrees 45 minutes 22 seconds West and 23. North 76 degrees 27 minutes 07 seconds West 56.14 feet to a point; 62.14 feet to a point; 64.61 feet to a point; 18.09 feet to a point; 47.45 feet to a point; 19.34 feet to a point; 17.63 feet to a point; RUNNING THENCE along the Northerly line of lands shown on subdivision "Southold Shores" filed map number 3853 north 76 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds Wes~ and through a monument 945.33 feet to the Easterly side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) at the point or place of BEGINNING. PARCEL II: A~L that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Arshamomaque, Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, being more particularly bound and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of the herein described premises where same intersects the southeasterly corner of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Shelter Island Sound and' the "Creek" the following twenty-five courses and distances: 1. South 2. South 3. North 4. North 5. North 6. North 7. North 8. North 9. North 10. South 11. South 12. North 13. South 14. South 15. North 16. South ~17. South 118. North 59 degrees 14 minutes 34 87 degrees 14 minutes 26 77 degrees 03 minutes 09 71 degrees 42 minutes 05 73 degrees 51 minutes 08 68 degrees 04 minutes 00 61 degrees 21 minutes 05 seconds west seconds west seconds west seconds west seconds we~t seconds west seconds west 49.84 feet to a point; 60.42 feet to a point; 78.38 feet to a point; 167.77 feet to a point; 141.22 feet to a point; 237 feet to a point; 198.05 feet to a point; 42 degrees 14 minutes 52 seconds west 90 feet to a point; 26 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds east 86.77 feet to a point; 1 degree 13 minutes 04 seconds east 83.96 feet to a point; 33 degrees 35 minu~es 08 seconds east 54.07 feet to a point; 57 degrees 10 minutes 41 seconds east 46.76 feet to a point; 5 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds west 45.15 feet to a point; 52 degrees 28 minutes 59 seconds east 27.25 feet to a point; 79 degrees 35 minutes 04 seconds east 112.08 feet to a point; 19 dagrees 14 minutes 31 seconds east 95.11 feet to a point, 66 degrees 43 minutes 36 seconds east 22.49 feet to a point; 15 de~rees 33 minutes 07 seconds east 97.79 feet to a point; -cont.- Riaer to Mortgage ~age. 4 Description of Premises 19. North 35 degrees 59 minutes 31 20. South 76 degrees 46 minutes 24 21. South 14 degrees 31 .minutes 40 22. South 36 degrees 35 minutes 53 23. South 74 degrees 10 minutes 59 24. North 80 degrees 47 minutes 59 and 25. South 58 degrees southwest corner seconds east 35.54 feet to a point; seconds east'91.98 feet to a pofnt; seconds east 68.49 feet to a point; seconds east 84.30 feet to a point; seconds east 72.31 feet to a point; seconds east 80.62 feet to a point; 18 minutes 46 seconds east 206.98 feet to the of lands now or formerly of John H. Mulholland; RUNNING THENCE along the southerly line of lands now or formerly of John J. Mulholland south 80 degrees 36 minutes 55 seconds east 112.80 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. Sellers are conveying all lands now owned by them at this location and have not retained any strips, gores or other pieces of land which would interfere with purchaser's access to the public highway or the waterfront SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTMg: COMMENTS: 800 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 724-6333 December 17,1991 Town of Southold,Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. Southold,N.Y.11971 Re: Harbor View Landing Sage Blvd. Greenport,N.Y. To whom it may concern; I am writing to inform you that we have employed the services of B. Laing Associates to represent our interests in all matters concering the environmental issues for our parcel in Greenport. B. Laing Associates will represent our interests so far as the rezoning efforts currently underway. You are requested to provide to B. Laing Associates to B. Laing Associates access to any and ail documents and instruments you may have in your possession as to The Harbor View Landing project. Furthermore, we ask you to extend to B.Laing Associates your every courtesy and cooperation in this endeavor. This letter of authority shall remain open, continuous and binding until otherwise cancelled in writing. Sin~ ~~ ' C1G~ v CR:mr 800 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 724-6333 December 18,1991 Town of Southold,Town Hall Planing Board 55095 Main Rd. Southold,N.Y.11971 ATT: Bennett Orlowski Jr. Re:Harbor View Landing Sage Blvd. Greenport,N.Y. Chairman Dear Mr. Orlowski; I am writing to you with an offering for the Town of Southold in conjuction with our ongoing project. We are looking forward to making a donation of the marjority of'our site for the preservation purposes. Our project seeks to develop th~.eastern end of the site, with some concessions:.fromthe Planing and Town Boards on lot size and setbacks. We seek to develop 10 lots on 16+ acres an additional almost 7 acres held by the Home Owners Association for recreation,an additional 6+ acres for the roadways and associated ~rainage. The areas we propose to donate,include such features as over 800 L.F. of harbor shoreline, several fresh water ponds, extensive fresh water and salt water wetlands, the marjority ot the parcel is for- ested, additionaly there is over 1,200 L.F. of frontage on Main Rd. The total acerage is 55,883 acres or nearly 65% of our total site. What we seek from our donation is the knowledge that we have helped to preserve this portion of Southold's natural beauty and to garner approval of our subdivision. Our only stipulation is that we are en- abled to take maximum value for the donation. I have prepared a smal~th~o~al parcel to assist you in evalvating the donation. Should you~i~o meet for further information or a full presensation please calI~ ClifFord Rudolph ~ Gen~r~l Partne~ CR:mr PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latharn, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 December 12, 1991 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: As of this date the Planning Board has not received the information requested in their letter dated September 24, 1991. As you know, on September 30, 1991, the Planning Board started the Lead Agency process on the above mentioned project subject to receipt of revised maps. The Planning Board will not be proceeding with their review of the subdivision proposal, or the SEQRA review, until the requested information is received. Please either submit the missing items or indicate, in writing, by January 11, 1992, how you intend to proceed. Very truly yours, Bennettchalrman. OrlowsK1, dr. ~ ~;~' ~ ) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 1, 1991 SCOWF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 'Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael P. Bontje, President B. Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 RE: Major Subdivision of Harbor View Landing Sage Boulevard, Greenport SCTM% 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 30, 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the lead agency coordination process on this Type I action subject to receipt of revised maps. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~n5 Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765~1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael P. Bontje B.Laing Associates 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 September 24, 1991 RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Harbor View Landing SCTM~ 1000-53-5-12.5 Dear Mr. Bontje: In confirmation of the September 19, 1991 meeting with Valerie Scopaz and Melissa Spiro, which was held at your request, please note the following: The following information is either missing from the application, or must be clarified on the subdivision map: 1. A letter from the owner of the property authorizing you to act as his agent throughout the subdivision process 2. A deed description of the property; 3. The zone of the property must be indicated on the map; 4. The name of the owner(s) of the property must be indicated on the map; 5. The map must be signed and sealed by the preparer; 6. The tax map number muSt be clarified. It appears that the Real Property number has changed. (It was decided at the meeting that the parcel would be referenced by the new number (1000-53-5-12.5)); Page 2 Harbor View Landing September 24, 1991 7. The name of the subdivision must be clarified (i.e. Harbor View Realty, Harbor View Landing...) You agreed to submit the above mentioned information prior to the Planning Board's September 30th meeting. It was discussed that the SEQRA process would be initiated by the Planning Board on September 30, 1991. You questioned that the Planning Board had already taken Lead Agency on the previous application and therefore, the Planning Board did not need to take Lead Agency again. It was decided, that the process would be started again, since the revised map would necessitate a new coordination process. However, you were assured that the Planning Board would assume Lead Agency status on the project. You were advised to submit a letter to the Town Board acknowledging that you were offering portions of the parcel for dedication to the Town. It was also suggested that you start the application process for all permits required prior to subdivision approval (Trustee, DEC, Health Department, etc.). As mentioned above, the Planning Board awaits the above mentioned information. Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 7654823 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees Bennett Or lowski, Jr. Chairman September 24, 1991 Harbor View Landing Sage Boulevard, Greenport SCTM9 1000-53-5-12.5 Attached is a copy of the map dated September 5, 1991 for the above mentioned subdivision proposal. The application materials for this subdivision, including a Long Environmental Assessment Form and an appendix to the LEAF, were submitted to this office on September 11, 1991. The current application is for a 10 lot subdivision. It is my understanding that the Trustees previously reviewed a map, at the request of the applicant, for a 7 lot subdivision. The Planning Board will be starting the Lead Agency coordination process for this application at their September 30, 1991, public meeting. The LEAF and appendix will be forwarded to your office when this process begins. However, at this time, the Planning Board requests your review of the map. The Planning Board is concerned in particular with the following: The setbacks from the wetlands, which are shown as being fifty (50) feet, rather than the usual seventy-five (75) feet. This includes the setbacks for the proposed road, dwellings and driveways. The applicant proposes several areas for recreation and boat moorings, one of which is shown as being located on underwater land owned by the applicant. What is the procedure/jurisdiction for the proposed boat moorings? Page 2 Harbor View Landing September 25, 1991 By way of background, the applicant intends to dedicate most of the open space/wetlands to the Town, Land Trust, or similar entity, to remain as open space. The applicant has divided the open space area throughout the property into different parcels. As indicated on the map, some of these areas will be offered for dedication to the Town or similar group, and the remainder will be owned by a Homwowner's Association. Please consider whether the Town should accept the offer to dedicate any one of these parcels. The Planning Board awaits your Board's review of the map before proceeding with sketch approval. Please contact Melissa Spiro of this office if you have any questions or require any additional information. B. LAING SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 225 MAIN STREET, NORTHPORT, NY 11768 518-261-7170 FAX: 516-261-7454 September 9, 1991 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Harbor View Landinq SCTM #1000-053-05-8, 12.3, and 12.4 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please find attached a preliminary subdivision application for re-development of that 83.117 acre parcel of land commonly know as the Sage Parcel (and as referenced above). This letter is also accompanied by an application fee of $3,600.00. Such a fee is less than that directly specified for such parcel because it only includes the 25.87 acres to be subdivided. That is, 57.247 acres are offered as conservation lands, if the subdivision obtains a negative declaration under SEQRA. Thus, the resulting, privately held subdivided lands of 25.87 acres will occur in areas currently used for cottage/commer- cial purposes and/or formerly portions of the brick yard. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Michael P. Bontje President JACSAGiO/SC SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latharn, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa, P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765~1823 Michael p. Bontje, President B. Laing Associates 260 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 May i, 1990 Dear Mr. Bontje, Re: Proposed Application of Harbor View Landing SCTM 9 1000-053-05-8, 12.3, and 12.4 The Planning Board reviewed your presubmission proposal of April 11, 1990, which would result in the creation of seven residential building lots on 83+ acres. on behalf of your client, you had asked this Board to outline what additional information should be provided with the application. As you are aware, this property is environmentally sensitive. The Planning Board has particular concerns, which should be addressed in the long environmental assessment form and in the supporting documentation. These concerns are as follows: Soil composition. Include test hole boring data. Indicate distance between proposed septic systems and all surface waters, including freshwater wetlands. Nitrate loading. Indicate what degree of nitrate loading can be expected to result from the installation of seven septic systems. Grading. Indicate to what extent the existing grade will be changed in order to comply with federal flood insurance standards. Wetlands. Flag all wetlands in field before submitting preliminary maps. (The wetlands line will be verified by the Conservation Advisory Council, the Board of Trustees and the State Department of Environmental Conservation. You will be notified in writing as to whether these agencies agree with your wetlands determination.) Indicate whether any regrading or construction will occur within 75' of freshwater wetlands, saltwater wetlands, and the bulkhead. Boats. The proposed use of the existing small boat docks should be detailed. How many boats do you envision using this facility? What size vessels do you anticipate using this facility? Indicate if any dredging, reconfiguration of the shoreline, new bulkheading, replacement bulkheading, an~ construction of new docks are being proposed. Open Space. Indicate who would own and maintain the open space, including the boat docking facility. Road Profiles. Upgrading of the road will require permits from the Board of Trustees and the State Department of Environmental Conservation. Provide details of the proposed construction, particularly with regard to drainage and grading. Water Supply. Will the existing water supply from Greenport be of sufficient quantity for the proposed project? Archeological Resources. Indicate if any such resources will be impacted by the proposed project. Please provide the above-noted information as part of your long environmental assessment form and your preliminary application. This listing of information that the Board wants to submitted with the application is not final. The Board reserves the right to request more information as part of the State-mandated coordinated environmental review and as part of the subdivision review. Upon receipt of a completed application form, application fee, long environmental assessment form and preliminary subdivision maps, the Planning Board will initiate the subdivision and environmental review process. Very Truly Yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~' ~ Chairman VS/vs cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees John Holzapfel, Chairman, Conservation Advisory Council MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Trustees Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ~ Proposed Subdivision Involving Extensive Wetlands April 13, 1990 Bn behalf of the Planning Board, I am asking your assistance%n our review of a presubmission proposal for a major subdivisio~Of land incorporating extensive fresh water wetlands, fWould it be possible for you and other members of your Board to attend the Planning Board's next work session on April 18th (Wednesday)? The Board generally starts its work meeting at 5 p.m. THE CHESTERFIELD GROUP, INC. 149-2 MIDDLE COUNTRY ROAD MIDDLE ISLAND, NEW YORK 11953 (516) 924-4335 FAX (516) 924-4355 Febru~r~ 24, 1990 MS. VALERIE SCOPAZ Town Planner Town Of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Harbor View Landing project - Dear Ms. Scopaz: On behalf of both our client, Harbor View Landing Partners, and Mr. Michael Bontje, we wish to thank you for the valuable time which you generously extended to Mr. Bontje and the undersigned on Friday afternoon, February 23, 1990. We especially appreciate your accommodating us in view of the recent death in your family. During the course of our conference, we reviewed with you the zoning history of the so-called Sage Parcel (now owned by our clients, and identified as the Harbor View Landing Project). Additionally, Mr. Bontje provided a summary of the existant wetlands as recently assessed by his firm, together with several alternative approaches to a reasonable subdivision of the subject 83.117-acre parcel. Discussion also centered on clustering the single-family lots. You emphasized the importance of public water availability for the site, and strongly suggested that we confer as soon as possible with Greenport Water Authority. To this end, we will be contacting Mr. H. Sherman, Director of the Greenport Water Authority, to arrange a meeting with him as to this very matter, following wkick we intend to confer with you as to the results of this meeting and an alternative site plan for the subject property. With best regards, we remain Yours, etc., THE CHESTERFIELD GROUP, INC. Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr., LL.B., LL.M. President cc.: Mr. Michael Bontje Harbor View Partners H,Alklb©lq_ ¥1 W 750 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 (516) 724-2500 FAX: (516) 724-2128 Shore Road Glenwood Landing, NY 11576 (516) 944-7458 December 28, 1989 Re: Harbor View Landing Project Designation of Project Manager And Authority Gentlemen: Please be advised that the Harbor View Partners, owners of the 83-acre Harbor View Landing Project fronting the Shelter Island Sound with access thereto from NYS Route 25 in the Township of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (District 1000, Section 53, Block 5, Lots 8, 12.3 and 12.4), has retained the services of Mr. Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr., LL.B., LL.M. and his company, The Chesterfield Group, Inc., to provide consultancy services and zoning management oversight concerning the Harbor View Landing Project. Mr. Stakes and The Chesterfield Group, Inc. will represent the rights and interests of the Harbor View Partners as to the effort concerning the procurement of ail final zoning and engineering approvals as to the Harbor View Landing Project. You are requested to provide to Mr. Stakes a copy of ali documents and instruments you may have in your possession as to the Harbor View Landing Project. Furthermore, we ask that you extend to Mr. Stakes your every courtesies entire endeavor. This letter of authority shal! binding until otherwise cancelled in writing. Very truly yours, HARBOR VIEW PARTNERS cl. ffORD RUDO--EPH, /" PARTNER WILBUR S. STAKES, JR., LLB., LLM. PRESIDENT & C.E.O. NIMROD INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD. and cooperation as to this remain open, continuous and B. LAING . SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING MICHAEL P. BONT'IE 149-2 MIDDLE COUNTRY RD. 516-261-7170 TEL. (516) 924-4335 260 MAIN STREET FAX (516) 924-4355 MIDDLE ISLAND, N.Y. 11953 NORTHPORT, NY 11768 FAX: 516-261-7454 750 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 (516) 724-2500 FAX: (516) 724-2128 Shore Road Glenwood Landing, NY 11576 (516) 944-7458 December 28, 1989 Re: Harbor View Landing Project Designation of Project Manager And Authority Gentlemen: Please be advised that the Harbor View Partners, owners of the 83-acre Harbor View Landing Project fronting the Shelter Island Sound with access thereto from NYS Route 25 in the Township of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (District 1000, Section 53, Block 5, Lots 8, 12.3 and 12.4), has retained the services of Mr. Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr., LL.B., LL.M. and his company, The Chesterfield Group, Inc., to provide consultancy services and zoning management oversight concerning the Harbor View Landing Project. Mr. Stakes and The Chesterfield Group, Inc. wil! represent the rights and interests of the Harbor View Partners as to the effort concerning the procurement of all final zoning and engineering approvals as to the Harbor View Landing Project. You are requested to provide to Mr. Stakes a copy of all documents and instruments you may have in your possession as to the Harbor View Landing Project. Furthermore, we ask that you extend to Mr. Stakes your every courtesies and cooperation as to this entire endeavor. This letter of authority shat1 binding until otherwise cancelled in writing. Very truly yours, HARBOR VIEW PARTNERS By RU0OL'P,, x PARTNER WILBUR S. STAKES, JR., LL.B., LL.M. PRESIDENT & C.E.O. NIMROD INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD. TEL. (516) 924-4335 FAX (516) g24-4355 149-2 MIDDLE COUNTRY RD. MIDDLE ISLAND, N.Y. 11953 remain open, continuous and B. LAING - ,SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING MICHAEL P. BONTJE 260 MAIN STREET NORTHPORT, NY 11768 FAX:516-261-7454 THE CHESTERFIELD GROUP, INC. 149-2 MIDDLE COUNTRY ROAD MIDDLE ISLAND, NEW YORK 11953 (516) 924-4335 FAX (516} 924-4365 Febru~r~ 24, 1990 MS. VALERIE SCOPAZ Town Planner Town Of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Harbor View Landinq Project - Dear Ms. Scopaz: On behalf of both our client, Harbor View Landing Partners, and Mr. Michael Bontje, we wish to thank you for the valuable time which you generously extended to Mr. Bontje and the undersigned on Friday afternoon, February 23, 1990. We especially appreciate your accommodating us in view of the recent death in your family. During the course of our conference, we reviewed with you the zoning history of the so-called Sage Parcel (now owned by our clients, and identified as the Harbor View Landing Project). Additionally, Mr. Bontje provided a summary of the existant wetlands as recently assessed by his firm, together with several alternative approaches to a reasonable subdivision of the subject $3.117-acre parcel. Discussion also centered on clustering the single-family lots. You emphasized the importance of public water availability for the site, and strongly suggested that we confer as soon as possible with Greenport Water Authority. To this end, we will be contacting Mr. H. Sherman, Director of the Greenport Water Authority, to arrange a meeting with him as to this very matter, following which we intend to confer with you as to the results of this meeting and an alternative site plan for the subject property. With best regards, we remain CC.: Yours, etc., THE CHESTERFIELD GROUP, INC. Wilbur S. Stakes, Jr., LL.B., LL.M. President Mr. Michael Bontje Harbor View Partners I SC N sOUND Southold Town Harming Board