Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1000-22.-3-20
orzch2. PLANNING BOARD MEMB; QG • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. �� y� P.O. Box 1179 m Chairan C Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM J. CREMERS ti ze Fax (516) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS `Y • Telephone (516) 765-1938 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,JR. y 0� RICHARD G.WARD e PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 1 , 1999 Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O. Box 969 5 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 RE: Subdivision Applications for Gazza and Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3- (19-22) & 31-5-1.2 Dear Mr. Gazza: I reviewed the above mentioned files in response to your telephone request for a list of the application fees and environmental fees paid to the Planning Board during the subdivision review. The fees paid are as follows: August 1985 Minor subdivision application fees $1600.00 July 1989 SEQRA review fee $70.00 May 1993 SEQRA review fee $1500.00 October 1993 SEQRA scoping fee $350.00 Please let me know if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Melissa Spiro Planner THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION 1S FOR LOTS ON 3- �'� ACRES LOCATED ON uiPsf Si �tc r barn o/L,IN cf t1 n SCT,%Itt 1000- Z '— - 3 —,;>- p MINOR SUBDIVISION (NO ROAD) Complete application received IDOL OK Application reviewed at work session "ro koL OK Applicant advised of necessary revisions E ` Revised submission received n OK r"0� OK Sketch plan approval -with conditions Lead Agency Coordination ssu m e c A s '- 9 L SEQRA determination �'� �I/3if ) Sent to Fire Commissioner Receipt of firewell location Notification to applicant to include on final map Sent to County Planning Commission a oK AM Receipt of County Report � OK Review of SCPC report Draft Covenants and Restrictions received Draft Covenants and Restrictions reviewed ro.` oK Filed Covenants and Restrictions received Receipt of mylars and paper prints with Health approval . Final Public Hearing Approval of subdivision -with conditions Endcr se=nt of subdivision. 0 14-16-2 (2187)-7c _- 617.21 S EO R Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑Part 3 tUpon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 PRO PO-rM SV6J,V1J,o4 eF LIRNOJ Sr ruArE Ar EA$T MA+ercnJ Name of Action 000 -022.03.010 Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer ( Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer if a f*ngesW6nbl icer) ` Date GO I-'ql 1 SOUTNf` PLAN", CART 1—PROJECT INFORMATI Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered- as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additiona!( information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION PROPDJAZ SJbdivrJ,a>I CF L-ANOS Xi-rvAnY /QT- 1eA.4r AIARIwt/ LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address, Municipality and County) ry AflSfO Nft Rr 2j IgG2 Pr. E/o _T7fIA_r P-oAo rfAP wftg,�an/ -rv� -.IkC, . NYS NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS ATTOR7VEY-1+T-LAW P. O. BOX 9695 OGDEN LANE CITY/PO k, EW YORK 11889(516)653-5768 STATE ZIP CODE NAME OF OWNER(II different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE G3 FF rJ1cF Lif7TtCo-, ( ) ADDRESS '/if' CA`1V9A Rona CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE 116,`jq0 A/Y L,/ yo, k cD ( u A/ys DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Pp.Ro Pu/wo .S'uB Divi cF VA C ANT LA,..o :.u7o 2 R 1'•p+^T4nL L TJ' I 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 ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) ItRural (non-farm) OForest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 4 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 4- acres -1•-7 acres Forested O acres O acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) O acres O acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) ytt acres acres Water Surface Area 42 acres _� acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) O acres O acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces O acres 3 acres Other (Indicate type) -- acres — acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? SAvP d,: GRAVEL a. Soil drainage: MWell drained /00 % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site OPoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involyfd-how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYSE Land Classification System? N.P. acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). \ 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes ONO a. What is depth to bedrock? N• A. (in feet) 2 S. Approximate percentageposed project site with slopes: 1$02 % 010-15% _% w ❑15% or greater - % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ❑Yes KNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes NINo 8. What is the depth of the water table? /2 Yf>nfn feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? IWYes ONO 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Ayes ONO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑Yes ONO According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Oyes ENO Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑Yes 1PNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑Yes ONO 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Al' / a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name DAm Punl0 b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ONO a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ayes ONO b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Eyes ONO 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes ONO 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes ONO 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑Yes WNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor O acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: _4= _ acres initially; fps _ j7Nly acres ultimately. • of IA c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped .�_dacres. d. Length of project, in miles: N. 11• (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed /V /a, %; I. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N- A• ; proposed N• A• g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour :2 ' 3 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium / Initially O Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 30 height; -width; 60 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 53.bz ft R,o.W. A& N-M GE 3 2. How much natural material (i.e.,*k, earth, etc.) will be removed from thele'? __0 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Dyes ONO QN/A a. If yes, for what intend_,: purpose is the site being reclaimed? Al M 9,anow) r Pon b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ONO Re eF o 0 FTru,armCor w-+N Tbw APM.,'Ro Rano, c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ONO 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? Ya acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 9 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated A/- A. (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 + month 19r'F3 year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase f% month t 9638 year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes ONO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Dyes ONO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 12- after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑Yes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Dyes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ®Yes ONO Type -PA"/"ARy 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes ONO Explain ENTRC FROTa-r XCTgp,;k OVCf Ico R; Fiq.m rrXr�Tr�G LVATFM1 ODDy 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? '®Yes ONO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Dyes 41No a. If yes, what is the amount per month O tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Dyes ONO c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyes ONO e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Dyes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? Al.A. tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Al.A. years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes ®No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes ONO 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes ONO 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? IYYes ONO If yes , indicate type(s) I=I-PC1klt. Ace /-//-to 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity �5 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. Prig O t 44";'y Farr nsF �Fn�F�� C 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Dyes ONO If Yes, explain ' 4 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board ❑Yes EMo GiEy, Town, u+Hage Planning Board Eyes ❑No fAr,k.r rJQDrW�ioN t 986 City, Town Zoning Board Dyes ®No 4&ty, County Health Department ®Yes ❑No SArvrreaY A .r✓3DW1Jp0n/ 1 98(0 Other Local Agencies Dyes ❑No Other Regional Agencies Dyes ❑No State Agencies DSc Ny1' Eyes ❑No AlfrT.W_ PFek.1nit— \ 987 Federal Agencies ❑Yes ❑No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning decision? MYes []No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit Nsubdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Z "-` Z,W)A1G 1 What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 2 Loaf nr 2'& 04c0i 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? RlE.r. 06•JTrAL 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? M r^C CG Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? IffYes ❑No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a I/. mile radius of proposed action? (ZrZXjo 15"TrAL 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/. mile? Eyes ❑No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? -Mr, 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes ®No 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? I16Yes ❑No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? IRYes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes ISNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑Yes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. SEE ria-,no-'so, Xr 3 Jrvr 9d"J ,MAP ('M16PA0-GD GY r-R-A�k GAYL6J d_r E. Verification certify that t*Coal provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsorrirpo FmrDTarefc CA'7-7,17 Date Signature Title �/�� If the action is in thand you area state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this asses 71 FREDF-?ICK GA ZA ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 5 P.CX BOX 869, 5 OGDEN LANE fEq y(.J. /JbJ 00 e QUOGUE NEW YORK 11956 (516) 653-57W — A l RCAD y - � Part 2-13 CT IMPACTS AND THEIR MPITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 t Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? HNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [-]No foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. C7 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No tons of natural material (i.e.; rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No 2. Will there be an effect tr. ...ry u;:.que or unusual land forms found on the site?(i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)PNO OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No It6 1 i a IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential ,Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NNO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? &NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No S. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? SNO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Liquid effluent will be conveye..)off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No day. • Proposed Action will likelv cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No (` 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MNO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 7 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? IRNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? PANO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? @JJO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural (and resources? Examples that would apply to column 2 ANO ❑YES • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NNO ❑YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix Et.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their f enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ONO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ C]Yes ❑No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13, Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 @NO DYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO ❑YES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? - ONO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No facility. 1 • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ El Yes ED NO within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste... • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 10 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Change ®NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? WNO ❑YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. (lased on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 14-14.11 121871—ec 617.21 SEAR Appendix B '-�tnte Environmental Quality Review Visual E.P F Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-3 3-5 5+ • A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? • State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 • The State Forest Preserve? MIA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? NIl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? Nln • National Park Service lands? Nll ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? NIA • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? WIA • A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? Nlo • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a • County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • State? NNJ Rr 25— ` MA+..+ R•AD) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ • Localroad? ❑ 1P ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal?(i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ®Yes ❑No 3. Are any of the resources checked in question I used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? ❑Yes (INo IRW DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Within *1/4 mile •1 mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ Forested ❑ Agricultural N!A ❑ ❑ Suburban residential ❑ !� Industrial N!A ❑ ❑ Commercial N/A ❑ ❑ Urban N/A ❑ ❑ River, Lake, Pond DAJA PDQ It ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks N/n ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ ❑ Flat ® ❑ a Hilly ❑ im Mountainous NIA ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: •1/2 mile ❑Yes El No •1 miles 11 Yes El No *2 miles ❑Yes ❑No *3 miles ❑Yes ❑No f • Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as Appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is M n1+M�l NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents ® ❑ ❑ ❑ At a residence Is ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E 2 M vs.. o�QSOffU(�( Co Town Hall Albert J. Krupski, President �� �y 53095 Main Road James King,Vice-President < P.O.Box 1179 Henry Smith y x Southold,New York 11971 Artie Foster ip .F Ken Poliwoda Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax(516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Planning Board Members FROM: BOARD OF TRUSTEES DATE: June 18, 1999 RE: Gazza/Lettieri project .t On Monday June 28, 1999 at approx. 7 :oo p.m. the Board of Trustees would like to have a meeting with your board and the Zoning Board to discuss the Gazza/Lettieri project. Please let Diane or Lauren know if you can make this meeting. If you have any questions, please contact our office at 765-1892 . �iNf2ll)��Ift'l�ij ?9i�u Sub c APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS • SOFFfI(,� O�Q CSO Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer,Chairman =� 'yam 53.O. Main Road James Dinizio, y P.O. Box 1179 Lydia DiA. izio,TortJr.Ja 0 Southold,New York 11971 • ZBA Fax(516)765-9064 Lora S. Collins y4j�l �.a4! Telephone(516)765-1809 �L George Horning P6 I BOARD OF APPEALS l� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 9, 1999 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 4619 - Request for Improvements/Fire Access ` `~"7 3 Dear Mrs. Moore: As a follow-up and reminder, this will confirm that the above application is incomplete pending receipt of documentation, noted below (ref. ZBA October 8, 1998 letter). Would you please forward a copy of the SEQRA law or Section under Part 617 referred to in your January 28, 1999 letter. 1) Seven (7) prints of a survey map with preparer's name, showing the 15' wide driveway required by the Zoning Code and the number of buildings proposed and the points of access from the proposed right-of-way construction. (The most recent map submitted to the ZBA was dated October 18, 1998 referring to 1V lots.) 2) Staking or similar markings, in part, to show proposed path and turns, along both sides of proposed ROW construction, and photographs of same in relation to the wetlands. 3) Copy of Town Trustees' action and State D.E.C. application or permit regarding the proposed construction activities within 300 feet of wetlands. Thank you. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRIN � D CHAIRMAN APR V - 'zoo Southold Town Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS • gUFFO(,�-COG Sown Hall, 53095 Main Road BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. y� P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Southold,New York 11971 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ti Z Fax(516)765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS Telephone(516) 765-1938 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,JR. RICHARD G.WARD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 6, 1999 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Gazza, Grundbesitzer Corp., and Lettieri Property SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 1000-31-5-1.2 Dear Ms. Moore: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, April 5, 1999: WHEREAS, in 1993, Joseph Frederick Gazza, Andrew Lettieri and Bernice Lettieri filed applications for subdivision approval on the following properties: SCTM# 1000-22-3-19: 2 lots proposed on 4.9 acres; SCTM# 1000-22-3-20: 2 lots proposed on 4.0 acres; SCTM# 1000-22-3-21: 2 lots proposed on 5.4 acres; SCTM# 1000-22-3-22: 3 lots proposed on 6.3 acres; SCTM# 1000-31-5-1.2: 3 lots proposed on 10.67 acres; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 1993, the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration on each proposal, noting that the five (5) subdivision projects were pending in the same geographic area and that the five (5) projects would involve common and potentially significant impacts; and WHEREAS, the five (5) proposals have been dormant since the issuance of the Positive Declaration; and WHEREAS, as per letters dated April 5, 1999, March 10, 1999, and March 8, 1999, Joseph Frederick Gazza, Andrew Lettieri and Bernice Lettieri notified the Planning Board that they wished to withdraw the five (5) subdivision applications; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board withdraw the subdivision applications for SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, SCTM# 1000-22-3-20, SCTM# 1000-22- 3-21 and SCTM# 1000-22-3-22, and SCTM# 1000-31-5-1.2. Page 2 Gaga, Grundbesitzer Corp., and Letteri Property April 6, 1999 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, ^ y Bennett Orlowski, Jr. S Chairman cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Town Trustees ORIENT AJSOCIATION BOX 282 ORIENT NY 11957 March 19,1999 Ms. Melissa Spiro Planning Department Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Melissa, We urge Southold Town to proceed vigorously to preserve the property around Dam Pond. Its priority listing in the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan and the Southold Town Open Space and Farmland Conservation plan, as cited in the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve proposal, indicate that the Town has long recognized its importance. Additionally, it was given highest priority by the Orient and East Marion members of the Scenic Byways Committee because of its critical position in the landscape of the causeway,which has been identified by the people of East Marion and Orient, and by Southolders at large, as one of the "special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens' experience of place, and which define for visitors their experience of the landscape of Southold Town. As you know,there is presently an application before the Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals to develop a road to serve five building lots. The Town of Southold has the opportunity to acquire this critical property before it is lost permanently to development, but there is clearly little time to lose. It would be tragic if the Town did not use the means it has been given by the taxpayers for just such a purchase, and lost a property which has been unanimously identified as of the most significant importance to the Town's vistas and environment. The Town must make a firm commitment now to effect its purchase. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Supervisor Cochran 1!!avq Al Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman,Zoning Board of Appeals Bennet Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board 2 1999 Southold Town Planning Board 0 0 ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 ORIENT NY 11957 March 18, 1999 Mr. Albert Krupski Jr., Chairman Town Trustees Town Hall Main Road, Southold Dear Mr. Krupski, The application before you for a road across the wetlands by Dam Pond has raised great concerns. As you know,this property has been widely identified by State and local plans as of the greatest significance and highest priority for acquisition by the public. The track which is being called an old farm road is frequently under water and was a significant issue in the Planning Board's decision to make a positive declaration when the application was before them It is difficult to believe that a road which would access five properties would not significantly degrade the wetlands of this sensitive area, both through construction and usage. We urge the Trustees to withhold this permit until this question can be adequately addressed through complete environmental review. Sincerely, l v� Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board Melissa Spiro, Planning Department 7� Q TO 0 ORIENT 1 1SSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT . NY 11957 March 19, 1999 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Benny, I'm enclosing letters to the Trustees, ZBA, and Town Board officials about the urgency to preserve the property around Dam Pond. Your SEQRA positive declaration was accurate for this sensitive area, and remains, I believe, necessary for the road-access application before the other boards, even without further subdivision. But more to the point is the critical significance of this property as identified by the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan, the Southold Town Open Space and Farmland Conservation Plan, and the Scenic Byways priority list. This site should not be developed but should be preserved, and I hope you will do what you can to facilitate the Town's making a firm commitment to purchase it as soon as possible. S�incer�ely,) 1 v � Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Melissa Spiro, Town Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, ZBA O 0 ORIENT ASSOCIATION Box 282 . ORIENT NY 11957 March 19, 1999 Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Gerry, The Zoning Board has before it an application for a 280-a variance for access to the properties owned by Mr. Gazza and Mr. Lettieri around Dam Pond. When a proposed subdivision of these properties was before the Planning Board,the issue of this proposed access road, which is based on an existing track that traverses wetlands and is often under water,was one of the reasons for a positive SEQRA declaration. We strongly urge you to reject this application. As you know, the Dam Pond area has been identified by at least three Town plans as a priority for preservation. I enclose copies of letters to the Supervisor and other members of town government urging them to commit themselves to its purchase as rapidly as possible. Sincerely, V—J�� FreddieWachsberger Cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor Bennett Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board Melissa Spiro, Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees � TO 0 ORIENT 1 ssOCTATION BOR 282 . ORIENT NY 11957 March 18, 1999 Jean Cochran, Supervisor Town Hall Southold,New York, 11971 Dear Jean, We urge you to proceed vigorously to preserve the property around Dam Pond. In addition to its priority listing in the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan and the Southold Town Open Space and Farmland Conservation Plan, as cited in your Dam Pond Maritime Reserve proposal, it was, of all the sites listed in Orient for the Scenic Byways Committee, one of the two highest priority parcels due to its critical position in the views from the causeway between Orient and East Marion. The causeway and its surrounding landscape have been identified by the people of Orient and East Marion, and by Southolders at large, as one of the"special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens' experience of place, and which define for visitors their experience of the landscape of Southold Town. There can be few sites more deserving of protection through the Town's program of the purchase of open space, and few sites more threatened with imminent development. Please use all means available to achieve this acquisition. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT •NY 11957 March 19,1999 Mr. Brian Murphy,ConncilmM Town Hall Southold,New York Dear Mr.Murphy, We urge Southold Town to proceed vigorously to preserve the property around Dam Pond. Its priority listing in the New York State Open Space Conservation Pun and the Southold Town Open Space and Farmland Conservation plan, as cited in the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve proposal,indicate that the Town has long recognized its importance. Additionally,it was given highest priority by the Orient and East Marion members of the Scenic Byways Committee because of its critical position in the landscape of the causeway,which has been identified by the people of East Marion and Orient,and by Southolders at urge,as one of the"special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens, experience of place, and which define far visitors their experience of the landscape of Southold Town. As you know,there is presently an application before the Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals to develop a road to serve five building lots. The Town of Southold has the opportunity to acquire this critical property before it is lost permanently to development,but there is clearly little time to lose. It would be tragic if the Town did not use the means it has been given by the taxpayers for just such a purchase, and lost a property which has been unanimously identified as of the most significant importance to the Town's vistas and environment. The Town must make a firm commitment now to effect its purchase. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Supervisor Cochran Melissa Spiro,Town Planner Al Krupski,Jr., Chown Trustees Gerrard Goehringer Zoning Board ofAppeals Bennet tkbwsfofisirman,Plamvning Board ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 ORIENT NY 11957 March 19, 1999 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Benny, I'm enclosing letters to the Trustees, ZBA, and Town Board officials about the urgency to preserve the property around Dam Pond. Your SEQRA positive declaration was accurate for this sensitive area, and remains, I believe,necessary for the road-access application before the other boards, even without further subdivision. But more to the point is the critical significance of this property as identified by the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan,the Southold Town Open Space and Farland Conservation Plan, and the Scenic Byways priority list. This site should not be developed but should be preserved, and I hope you will do what you can to facilitate the Town's Makin g a firm commitment to purchase it as soon as possible. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Melissa Spiro, Town Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, ZBA 17 MAR 2 2 1999 W Southold Town Planning Board ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT NY 11957 March 19, 1999 Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Gerry, The Zoning Board has before it an application for a 280-a variance for access to the properties owned by Mr. Gazza and Mr. Lettieri around Dam Pond. When a proposed subdivision of these properties was before the Planning Board,the issue of this proposed access road, which is based on an existing track that traverses wetlands and is often under water,was one of the reasons for a positive SEQRA declaration. We strongly urge you to reject this application. As you know, the Dam Pond area has been identified by at least three Town plans as a priority for preservation. I enclose copies of letters to the Supervisor and other members of town government urging them to commit themselves to its purchase as rapidly as possible. Sincerely, FreddieWachsberger Cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor Bennett Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board Melissa Spiro, Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees 0 0 ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 ORIENT NY 11957 March 19,1999 Ms. Melissa Spiro Planning Department Town Hall Southold, New York Dear Melissa, We urge Southold Town to proceed vigorously to preserve the property around Dam Pond. Its priority listing in the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan and the Southold Town Open Space and Farmland Conservation plan, as cited in the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve proposal, indicate that the Town has long recognized its importance. Additionally, it was given highest priority by the Orient and East Marion members of the Scenic Byways Committee because of its critical position in the landscape of the causeway, which has been identified by the people of East Marion and Orient, and by Southolders at large, as one of the "special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens' experience of place, and which define for visitors their experience of the landscape of Southold Town. As you know,there is presently an application before the Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals to develop a road to serve five building lots. The Town of Southold has the opportunity to acquire this critical property before it is lost permanently to development, but there is clearly little time to lose. It would be tragic if the Town did not use the means it has been given by the taxpayers for just such a purchase, and lost a property which has been unanimously identified as of the most significant importance to the Town's vistas and environment. The Town must make a firm commitment now to effect its purchase. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Supervisor Cochran Al Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Bennet Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board 0 0 ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT NY 11957 March 18, 1999 Mr. Albert Krupski Jr., Chairman Town Trustees Town Hall Main Road, Southold Dear Mr. Krupski, The application before you for a road across the wetlands by Dam Pond has raised great concerns. As you know, this property has been widely identified by State and local plans as of the greatest significance and highest priority for acquisition by the public. The track which is being called an old farm road is frequently under water and was a significant issue in the Planning Board's decision to make a positive declaration when the application was before them. It is difficult to believe that a road which would access five properties would not significantly degrade the wetlands of this sensitive area, both through construction and usage. We urge the Trustees to withhold this permit until this question can be adequately addressed through complete environmental review. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board Melissa Spiro, Planning Department ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT •NY 11957 March 19,1999 Mr. Brian Murphy,Councihnau Town Hall Southold,New York Dear Mr.Mwphy, We urge Southold Town to proceed vigorously to preserve the property mond Dam Pond. Its priority listing in the New York State Open Space Conservation Pin and the Southold Town Open Space and Farmland Conservation plan, as cited in the Dam Pond Maritime Reserve proposal,indicate that the Town has long recognized its importance. Additionally,it was given highest priority by the Orient and Fast Marion members of the Scenic Byways Committee because of its critical position in the landscape ofthe causeway,which has been identified by the people of East Marion and Orient, and by Scutholders at large,as one ofthe"special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens' experience of place, and which define for visitors their experience of the landscape of Southold Town. As you know,there is presently an application before the Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals to develop a mad to serve five building lots. The Town of Southold has the opportunity to acquire this MitiOd property before it is lost permanently to development,but there is clearly little time to lose. It would be tragic if the Town did not use the means it has been given by the taxpayers for,just such a purchase, and lost a property which has been unanimously identified as ofthe most significant importance to the Town's vistas and environment. The Town must make a firm commitment now to effect its purchase. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Supervisor Cochran Melissa Spiro,Town Pinner Al Krupsi d,Jr, Chapman, own Trustees Gerard Goehringea . .: Zoning Board of Appeals Bennet OdowskjoChaixmaz,Planning Board MS PATRICIA C. MOORE Ananey a Lew 51010 Man Rod Southold.New Yak 11971 Tel:(516)765-4330 Fa:(516)765-4643 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information from Patricia C. Moore. This information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the conts;nts of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. RE DATE: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET 02. IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CLIENT NAME: OPERATOR: MARGARET hix J. s Southold Town Planning Board Tn 39vd 3r00H S3JIJ30 MV1 579hS9Z9TS 95 :TT G66T!1' T/E0 Sent by: ST KITTS 94!5927142 0307199 10:10AM .LOB 74Ej page UJIEibt 1993 13:38 516,6540 04 LAW CFFi!-3LS MCC1REO :"43E d Narob 0, logo buuwtlt Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Bouthold Town Planning Board Town Ball 51090 114171 Boe4 P-O-BWt 1179 BonthoRd, BY 11971 kat Bust Mrion live %ors, parcel 200-A, BC( #1000-==-1-19, .70,21,77 Darr C1lairman orlewski 7 We are in receipt of your letter dated Pebruary ]b, 1999. Phase be advised that we, the undersigned, do not vish to *ubdivl.de our live *ors parcels located north of Daa pond, to her" withdrsv tM aplU0411ess to subalviae arab give %ors Pared Late tee lets. The 190A applioation is solely for lot %ooess to th* give acre single i separate poresls ovnad individually by the undersigned, this motion is a SZQ1RA Type II action, and doss not Involve the Planning Beard. The October 28, 1599 letter was simultaneously submitted to your board when it was submitted to the zonbW Board and Trustees, this van not 'an attempt to circumvent eiwl Segment the BBQPA process' a■ you allege. Its have he int*r*st in subdividing the five ogre Pr rtiae, and Planning Board applications have not been pursued in years and we believe that each five avre lot Is more desirable me a largo estate parcel. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, '✓ l . k_ f r— 'n 39k1d 3dCi01'l 537Idd0 M"� E.h9tS9L91S 9S :TT 6F6T%�' T/9n MS PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(516)7654330 Fax:(516)765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski stay IqMarch 15, 1999 Mr. Bennett OrlowskiJr. , Chairman Jr. 4.. ' �igl2 16 1999 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road S0Giho4d Tr)Wn' P.O.Box 1179 planning Board Southold, NY 11971 Re:Gazza and Lettieri subdivision Dear Chairman Orlowski: Enclosed please find an original letter dated March 10, 1999 from Mr. Gazza withdrawing his subdivision application. Mr. and Mrs. Lettieri are in Florida and as soon as I receive their signed letter I will forward it to you. Thank you in advance for your courtesies in this matter. If there is anything further you need, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore cc: Mr. Gazza Esq. Mr & Mrs Lettieri JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 969 5 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE, NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766 (Dm AND EVrNING) March 10, 1999 Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: East Marion five acre parcels 280-A,SCTM#1000-22-3-19 , 20, 21 , 22 Dear Chairman Orlowski , We are in receipt of your letter dated February 25 , 1999 , please be advised that we, the undersigned , do not wish to subdivide our five acre parcels located north of Dam Pond . We hereby withdraw the applications to subdivide each five acre parcel into two lots . The 280A application is solely for lot access to the five acre single & separate parcels owned individually by the undersigned , this action is a SEQRA Type II action, and does not involve the Planning Board . The October 28 , 1998 letter was simultaneously submitted to your board when it was submitted to the Zoning Board and Trustees, this was not "an attempt to circumvent and segment the SEQRA process" as you allege. We have no interest in subdividing the five acre properties , and Planning Board applications have not been pursued in years and we believe that each five acre lot is more desirable as a large estate parcel . Thank you for your anti ipated cooperation in this matter . Very ruly yours JOSEPHT DEbACK GA7, A ANDREW LETTIERI BERNICE LETTIERI cc : Lettieri & Lettieri 48 Cayuga Rd . Yonkers ,NY 10710 Patricia C. Moore-Esq. 51020 Southold, New York JOSEPH FREDERICK GAllA • ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 969 5 OODEN LANE Quoom New YORK 11959 (5 16)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) March 10, 1999 Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: East Marion five acre parcels 280-A,SCTM#1000-22-3-19, 20,21 , 22 Dear Chairman Orlowski , We are in receipt of your letter dated February 25 , 1999, please be advised that we, the undersigned, do not wish to subdivide our five acre parcels located north of Dam Pond . We hereby withdraw the applications to subdivide each five acre parcel into two lots . The 280A application is solely for lot access to the five acre single & separate parcels owned individually by the undersigned, this action is a SEQRA Type II action, and does not involve the Planning Board . The October 28 , 1998 letter was simultaneously submitted to your board when it was submitted to the Boning Board and Trustees, this was not "an attempt to circumvent and segment the SEQRA process" as you allege. We have no interest in subdividing the five acre properties, and Planning Board applications have not been pursued in years and we believe that each five acre lot is more desirable as a large estate parcel . Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. veryruly your , JOSEPH ITDECK GAZZA ANDREW LETTIERI BERNICE LETTI£RI MAN J. 1 1 y3 Oct Lettieri & Lettieri 48 Cayuga Rd . ,-,cuthold int ^;r, Yonkers,NY 10710 Planning Board : Patricia C. Moore-Ea q. 51020 Southold, New York PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS• • 00, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. 0�0 ` P.O. Box 1179 rm Chaian Southold,New York 11971 WILLIAM J.CREMERS y Z Fax(516) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS Dy • Telephone(516) 765-1938 GEORGERICHARDIG.WARD a PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUT14OLD February 25, 1999 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Gazza, Grundbesitzer Corp., and Lettieri Property SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 1000-31-5-1.2 Dear Ms. Moore: The Planning Board reviewed your January 28, 1999 letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was copied to the Planning Board and the Town Trustees, at the February 8, 1999, work session. The letter included a copy of a letter dated October 24, 1998, which was addressed to the Planning Board. The Planning Board's records do not show that the October 24, 1998 letter was ever submitted to the Planning Board Office. Your January 28, 1999, letter indicates that "... upon issuance of 280A approval for access to their individual parcels they will formally withdraw their individual minor subdivision applications...." Your letter does not direct the Planning Board to withdraw the applications at this time, and conditions the subdivision withdrawal on the granting of 280A approval. Based on the fact that your client is not formally withdrawing the pending applications, the question is once again raised as to if the recent applications before the Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals are an attempt to circumvent and segment the SEQRA process. Until such time that the pending applications are formally withdrawn, the applications for subdivision approval and the Positive Declarations which were issued in regard to the applications, remain pending before the Planning Board. The Planning Board, by copying this letter to both the Town Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals, is notifying those agencies that the subdivision applications which are pending before the Planning Board have not been withdrawn. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Town Trustees MS PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New Yak 11971 Tel:(516)765-0330 Fax:(516)765-4643 Margaret Rutkowsld Shy January 28, 1999 Rod D Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals JAN 2 9 1999 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Planning Board Southold, NY 11971 Re: 280 A - Bernice Lettieri, Andrew Lettieri and Joe Gazza Dear Chairman and Board members: I am in receipt of a letter dated January 13, 1999 from the owners do Boardregarding wishto the subdivide properties. ur sinlproperty n separate five acre parcels. Enclosed please find a copy of a letter prepared by the owners and signed by each owner stating that upon issuance of 280A approval for access to their individual parcels they will formally withdraw their individual minor subdivision applications submitted to the Planning Board in the 1980's which have been inactive since 1993. The only application the individual owners wish to pursue is 280-a access over the Lettieri 10.67 acre parcel (SEQRA Type II) . Pursuant to 280-a of Town Law, as amended July 1, 1998, "The applicant for such a permit may appeal from the decision of the administrative officer having charge of the issue of permits to the board of appeals or other similar board, in any town which has established a board having the power to make variances or exceptions in zoning regulations for: (a) an exception if the circumstances of the case do not require the structure to be related to existing or proposed streets 0 0 or highways, and/or (b) an area variance pursuant to section two hundred sixty-seven-b of this chapter, and the same provisions are hereby applied to such appeals and to such board as are provided in cases of appeals on zoning regulations." (New York State Town Law § 280-a, as amended July 1, 1998) The common property owners recorded a right-of-way agreement giving all parcels north of dam pond a common easement over the Lettieri ten(10+) acre property. The four parcels north of Dam Pond would prefer to share an appropriately improved but environmentally appropriate driveway with natural material and a pervious surface. We would welcome the Town Engineer's comments and a coordinated permit process between the Town Trustees and ZBA. We have applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a wetland permit and submitted at the public hearing affidavits and testimony of the history of the farm parcels and how the westerly kettle hole originated. Pursuant to the Trustee's request, a survey of the road detailing the contours and setbacks to wetland specifically in the area closest to Dam Pond and staking of the location of the road where the road crosses the low spot is being prepared. Once the area is staked I will call the boards for an inspection. After the detailed map is complete and the Town Trustees and ZBA have given us their recommendations for road improvements, we will be in a better position to apply to the DEC for a regulatory permit, if one is necessary. Since the subdivisions have not been pursued, and will ultimately be withdrawn, the Planning Board would no longer have jurisdiction over the road. The access would be limited to 280-a. I would be happy to coordinate as many agencies as you deem necessary. ve truly�yoouu�rs, Patricia C. Moore cc: Planning Board w/enc. Trustees w/enc. Mr. Gazza (by Fax) Mr. Lettieri • JOSEPH FREDERICK GAllA • ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 969 5 OGDEN LANE QuoGuE,NEw YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) October 24, 1998 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11771 Re: Subdivision Applications of/at 1000-022.00-03.00-019.000(4.9 ac.—2 lots proposed by J.F.Gazza) 1000-022.00-03.00-020.000(5 ac.—2 lots proposed by B.Lettieri) 1000-022.00-03.00-021.000(5.393 ac.—2 lots proposed by J.F.Gazza) 1000-022.00-03.00-022.000(6.3 ac.—3 lots proposed by J.F.Gazza&A.Lettieri) Dear Board Members, The undersigned,Bernice Lettieri and Andrew Lettieri have authorized Mrs.Patricia Moore-Atty.to apply for a 280-A variances to utilize an existing right of way easement as access to allow one single family dwelling to be constructed on tax lot 1000-022.00-03.00-19,20,21,&22. It is our intention to utilize each. parcel as one building lot and provided that a building permit is issued our pending subdivision application of these parcels will no longer be requested. It is respectfully requested that upon the issuance of a single family dwelling building permit on each tax lot that the pending sub-division application affecting each tax lot be withdrawn. Very truly yours, JOSEPH F E GAZZA Consentefloo: A RI ethN BE ICE LETTIERI Off 1-800-877-8881 Fax 1-201-343-1934 Pat Moore Fax: 765-4643 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERA S13ff014 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. 0�0 Gy` P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM J.CREMERS y Z Fax(516) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS �y • Telephone(516) 765-1938 GEORGTCHIE RICH •JR. ARD G.WARD a PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Town Trustees Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Melissa Spiro, Planner RE: Property owned by B. Lettieri, A. Lettieri and J. Gazza (a.k.a. ZBA application for: Proposed Right-of-Way and 280-A Access for fire vehicles (Five Building Lots) SCTM# 1000-22-3-22) (a.k.a. Planning Board files for Gazza, Grundbesitzer Corp. and Lettieri, SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 31-5-1.2) DATE: January 13, 1999 Below please find a list of Planning Board actions and Planning Board comments in regard tr he above mentioned property. The Planning Board huo had some form of subdivision proposal on the above mentioned properties pending since the early 1980's. Since 1993, five (5) subdivision proposals, as noted below, have been before the Planning Board: SCTM# 1000-22-3-19: 2 lots proposed on 4.9 acres; SCTM# 1000-22-3-20: 2 lots proposed on 4.0 acres; SCTM# 1000-22-3-21: 2 lots proposed on 5.4 acres; SCTM# 1000-22-3-22: 3 lots proposed on 6.3 acres; SCTM# 1000-31-5-1.2: 3 lots proposed on 10.67 acres. On September 14, 1993, the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration on each proposal, noting that the 5 subdivision projects were pending in the same geographic area and that the 5 projects would involve common and potentially significant impacts. Many of the reasons supporting the Positive Declaration apply to any type of development of the subject property. I am listing some of the reasons supporting the Positive Declaration below and enclosing a copy of the Positive Declaration for each project for your review. - Development of the subject parcels will result in significant loss of open space in a Town and County designated Critical Environmental Area which contains unique habitat and resources associated with Dam Pond. Lettieri/Gazza January 13, 1999 Page 2 - Development of the subject parcels will result in impairment of the viability of unique habitat areas including overgrown field, tidal wetlands, dune lands and first growth woods. The diversity of habitats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significant ecological impact. - Development of the subject parcels may cause impact to the surface waters of Dam Pond in the form of erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff, and nitrogen load. Groundwater is shallow beneath the site and may suffer negative impacts from sanitary system installation. - Development of the subject parcels will cause potential visual impacts of a negative nature. - The development of the subject parcels will require common access and will share some utilities and impacts. The viability of the access has been questioned by the Town Trustees as this access may require a road crossing over Trustee land, an action which the Trustees have indicated they are not inclined to permit. The Planning Board held a scoping session in regard to the proposals, and on November 12, 1993, sent the applicant a summary outline of the scoping session to be used as a guide for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A copy of same is attached. The proposals before the Planning Board have been dormant since the request for a DEIS. The applicants (Mr. and Mrs. Lettieri and Mr. Gazza), have not pursued their applications further. Pat Moore, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Lettieri and Mr. Gazza, attended the Planning Board's work session on September 28, 1998, during which the Planning Board was discussing the Zoning Board's request for comments regarding the subject parcels. Ms. Moore told the Planning Board that her client intended to withdraw the pending subdivision applications. However, as of this date, the Planning Board has not received correspondence in regard to the withdrawal of the subdivision applications. Therefore, the 280-A application presently stands in direct contravention to the 5 pending subdivision applications before the Planning Board. As noted above, one of the issues raised in the Planning Board's Positive Declaration was the access to the parcels, in that the access would require the crossing of a wetland. It is recommended that the records of the Town Trustees and NYSDEC be reviewed in regard to issues of wetland ownership, wetland permits and the impact of road construction on the wetlands. In addition, it is recommended that James Richter, Engineering Inspector, be coordinated in regard to road requirements within the right-of-way. Lettieri/Gazza January 13, 1999 Page 3 The Planning Board has before it a proposal to subdivide the property located to the west of the subject properties. The proposed subdivision is located on SCTM# 1000-22-3-15.1 and 18.3, and is known as Cove Beach Estates. The Planning Board granted conditional final approval to a 34 lot subdivision with one of the conditions being that: A road tap must be provided to allow for access of the adjacent properties to the east to Main Road. The road tap must be located approximately six hundred (600) feet north of the intersection of the proposed road (Cove Beach Drive) and Main Road (State Route 25) . The ownership of the Cove Beach Estates property has changed, and the new owner has filed conservation easements with the Peconic Land Trust on a majority of the property. In addition, he is proposing to decrease the number of lots to 10. The road layout for the 10 lot proposal is similar to that of the 34 lot proposal and the above mentioned condition in regard to the road tap will be required for the 10 lot proposal. Please see the enclosed diagram for clarification in regard to the proposed road tap location. Although Gazza and Lettieri are guaranteed access to SR25 over the Cove Beach road, this does not resolve the issue of access to the interior 4 lots. As noted earlier, the subdivision applications before the Planning Board have been dormant since the Board's request for the preparation of a DEIS. The Planning Board questions the end result of the 280-A application before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Wetland Permit Application before the Town Trustees: -Are the recent applications an attempt to circumvent the SEQRA process? -If the pending subdivision applications are not withdrawn, will the applicants proceed with their wish to subdivide the property into a total of 12 lots upon receipt of a decision from the ZBA in regard to the 280-A application? -If the pending subdivision applications are withdrawn, will the applicants at a later date re-apply for subdivision of the property? Again, is this an attempt to circumvent the SEQRA process? I trust the above mentioned information will assist you in your review of the pending applications. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me or to review the Planning Board's files. enc. OFFICE of BOARD OF APPEJUS Sout/!a!d'ro7vn 9lall S3ogS Main Road Soutliol�_VY.1wl 765-18og ZBA teL 765-go64 ZBA te(efax, p !EP MEMORANDUM 21 lyyff TO: Planning Board FROM: Board of Appeals Southold Town DATE: September 22, 11 8 Planning Board SUB]: Preliminary Recommendations Planning/Zoning Projects Re: Proposed Right-of-Way and 280-A Access for fire Vehicles (Five Building Lots) 1000-22-3-22 Our record shows that the Planning Board had/has jurisdiction in this area. Please describe actions or conditions relevant to this project Thank you. Re: Faith Reform Baptist Use— Existing Building at 1000-114-11-12. This property is Zoned HB and contains existing building(s). An Interpretation is being requested regarding Section 100- 91A(12), or alternatively a Special Exception oder Article IX, Section 100-91B for religious meeting activities. Re: Laurel Links Golf Course and Sian Variance (On Site) Laurel. A Special Exception for Golf Activities has been filed. Variance for a Ground Sign has been filed and is based upon a Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for this site. Re: Mr. and Mrs. Ed Dart. Proposed Set-Off/Division at C.R. 48 and 3070 Peconic Lane, Peconic. 1000-74-3-15. Size of house lot is substandard at 28,400+- sq. ft, and vacant land is proposed at 58,000+- s.f. Applicant proposes to retain same rear line as those immediately north. Re: Casa Bianca — Please confirm whether or not there has been any activity within the last 12 months with your department for any proposals. Thank you. PO PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O.Box 483 Mattituck,New York 11952 Tel:(516)298-5629 Fax: (5 16)298-5664 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary April 30, 1996 Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Lettieri 280A access for lots SCTM# 1000-22-3-19 to 22 Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board: Z would respectfully request a presubmission conference with the Board regarding the proposed 280A access to the above referenced lots. As you know this property has been the subject of litigation with the adjacent major subdivision, Cove Beach Estates. Alternative access over the adjacent parcel has been sought unsuccessfully through court action. The owners of the above referenced parcels have agreed not to subdivide the five acre lots, however they will require 280A access from the Zoning Board of Appeals and a wetland permit from you. Before we locate the proposed access, we request your guidance and assistance. Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore PCM/mr cc: Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Lettieri Joseph Gazza, Esq. / Southold Town Planning Board V MAY a G Southold Town Planning BOO 2 • December 12, 1994 PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Ward: 7:30 p.m. Cove Beach Estates - This major subdivision is for 34 lots on 98.27 acres located on the north side of Main Road; 1776 feet east of Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-22-3-15.1 & 18.3. Is the applicant here, or agent? Charles Cuddy: I'm Charles Cuddy. I appear on behalf of the owner who is Raoul Witeveen who is here tonight. Also with us are a number of people; Young & Young represented by Ken Abruzzo, Joe Fischetti, the engineer and John Halsey and Tim Caufield from the Peconic Land Trust. This application has been before the Board for a number of years. It's had, as you know, several different owners. Mr. Witeveen is the current owner and he has complied with the Board's requirements to get to this point. This is a property that has had not only a Board of Review hearing on several occasions with the Health Department, but had been the subject of a Supreme Court action. We, at this point in time, have received the Health Department approval and we have DOT approval and we believe that it's appropriate for the Board to go forward with the 34 lot subdivision. We've set aside a great many acres for open space and park and recreation and the subdivision I believe meets all the requirements that the Board has. And for that reason we would ask the Board give us conditional final approval subject to, among other things, to posting a performance bond and to complete a certain lot line application with the owner (inaudible). Mr. Ward: OK. We are in receipt of a letter from counsel William Moore representing Gazza-Lettieri on the property to the east and that letter will become part of the record and will be made available to the applicant. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard this evening regarding this proposed subdivision? Joseph Gazza: Good evening members of the Board. My name is Joseph Frederick Gazza. I live at Ogden Lane in Quogue and I'm an adjacent property owner to the east. The Board may be aware that I've appeared before you at least a dozen times, maybe more, in connection with my proposed development which is running simultaneously with the Cove Beach Development. As their development has been through a most likely 10 year review process, so has mine. By mine, I am talking about the Andrew Lettieri and the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcels as one. The key issue in the development of the Lettieri-Gazza property has always been the access issue and it has been my position that a coordinated plan of access should be accomplished with the two developments, since they are adjacent properties, since they share similar problems and since they both have only 50 or 60 feel of frontage on the Main Road. I I had outlined in a previous letter to this Board back in March of 1992, I'll provide the Board with a copy at this time -- the reasons for the coordination of access, reasons that I did not come up with by myself, but reasons that the Town of Southold Town Trustees determined were important for eliminating two roads side by side or eliminating a crossing of a wetland area with a roadway or a bridge, for aesthetics. For reasons that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation responded to about the non-necessity of having two roads in excess of 1400 feet, side by side. The DEC clearly made the point that there should be coordinated access, a coordinated road system. There should be planning between the two developments. I have been unsuccessful in negotiating with the property owners up to now, that may change now I'm not sure, but the prior owners, Mr. Harold Reese and others, I've Southold Town Planning B� 3 • December 12, 1994 never been successful in negotiating with them for a coordinated access. My background in real estate and planning subdivision process, I have never seen an instance where a Planning Board could look at two maps side by side and know full well that on map is very difficult to develop with the access that it has, if not impossible, and not coordinate access between the two maps. I spent a little while this afternoon at the County Center in Riverhead and I ran out every subdivision map that this Board has approved in the last five years. And I studied every single map. And I'd like to report to the Board that, I had a roll of quarters making photocopies of maps where the Planning Board looked at a parcel, determined that for coordination between this parcel and adjacent lands that an access spur should be provided. It's a normal, ordinary planning point. I'll start with the map of West Mill subdivision for M. Paul Friedberg, where the Board set forth a road leading to additional lands off of the -- well, let's see, it's your file number 9539, July 20, 1994. You may be familiar with that one. If I could present these maps to the Board? We have a second subdivision map known as the Southold Villas. Your filed map number 9237 in which Jasmine Lane was provided to continue into adjacent properties to future access with coordination in mind. We have the map of August Acres in which a spur road known as the Sage Spur was provided in the subdivision specifically to connect into future property, and it was labeled as Sage Spur, the adjacent property was the land of Sage. The map of Thomas MacKenzie filed number 9001, wherein the Board provided a 50 foot right of way to connect into the land of Latham Farms. The map of Highpoint Meadows, number 8912. It's an interesting one, the Board provided a cul-de-sac at the perimeter of the map and called it the Tuthill Road extension with the provision that the cul-de-sac turn around was to be eliminated when the road continued into the adjoining development. The map of Chardonnay Woods at Southold, where the Planning Board also sought then to extend a road through open space land, the access for a road, through open space to be preserved, in order to connect it to the lands of Sawicki, which were undeveloped, an acreage parcel adjacent. That was filed map 8822. There's been a longstanding practice of this Board to follow proper zoning and planning principles to provide for future development, to coordinate developments when possible. And I think that that step in connection with these two subdivisions, that of Gazza-Lettieri and Cove Beach Estates, has not been fully completed by the Board and I was hoping that the Board may reflect on your past practices, on the law, and on the fact that you have adjacent property owners who havelbeen before you for eight years focusing on the same issue, asking the Board for your consideration to provide an access spur and I appear before you this evening, I know it's the final application of this map, but my request is the same and I would hope that the Board would consider such an access spur to eliminate the problems that will develop with uncoordinated development of these two properties. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address this particular project? Mr. Cuddy: I would like to address Mr. Gazza's remarks. He wanted you to reflect on the law from the past. I didn't hear any law, and I don't think there is any to say that a neighboring property has the right to go over your property, which is what he proposes. But I'd like to review the facts with you a little bit because I don't think that they were Southold Town Planning Boo 4 • December 12, 1994 fully laid out. Mr. Gazza bought this piece of property a number of years ago. He has not gotten yet to an Environmental Impact Statement, and it's been more than eight years since he's owned the property. His parcel is apparently five separate minor subdivisions that he's trying to get this Board in one point or another to approve. He hasn't gotten really out of the environmental area yet and he does not have in fact before you, and actual subdivision. He's got a proposal. We're done effectively with our subdivision map. What he's asking is that you hold up our map so that something can be done with his map. I know of no principle that says you must (inaudible) your neighbors property with the imposition of a so called spur. There's none at law, and Mr. Gazza has not cited any law. Quite frankly, what Mr. Gazza is really asking this Board to do is not good planning. Because if it was good planning, Mr. Gazza could have stood up here and said, I want one road, you can use my road. But I haven't heard that offer because we're not going to hear that offer, because Mr. Gazza has a problem with his property, but he forgets to tell what the problem is and the problem is that it's fragile. Of course, you know that it's fragile. And what he did was he created a hardship. He bought a piece of property, it wasn't good, and he wants us, the neighboring property to assist him at this point, and that's just wrong to do. There's no question of good planning, putting a spur. That's nonsense to give you all sorts of spur related maps. Spurs are often done, but this isn't a spur. This is taking Mr. Gazza out of a problem and putting him across our property and doing it at the last moment. All this is tonight is a question of leverage and the Board shouldn't lend itself to this type of (inaudible). Thank you. Mr. Ward: Any further comments? Mr. Gazza: I'd like to respond, if I may? Mr. Ward: If you could make it brief it would be appreciated. Mr. Gazza: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I don't know if the Board can see the subdivision map from this distance but -- have you had an opportunity to review the map, Mr. Cuddy? -- it's easy to discern that the Cove Beach Road and the Gazza- Lettieri Road is running through land that is not environmentally sensitive for a distance of approximately 1400 feet, side by side. Absolutely two side by side roads. I have no problem, and neither does Mr. Lettieri with using either the Cove Beach Road or the Gazza-Lettieri road. We'd be very happy to use just one. This is just improper to have two roads side by side. Now, we'll offer our road and we have offered to the prior owners, Mr. Reese, to share 50/50 in the construction of the road, it) one road. And that offer was extended to the new owner. We're not here to get something for nothing. We're here to work on a coordinated plan and to share equitably for the benefit of both properties, the value of the properties and Southold in particular, by eliminating two roads side by side. Now, the peninsula portion of the Gazza-Lettieri development, does need an access spur. And it needs it just like those other subdivisions, which I gave the Board copies of, needed an access spur. And we'll pay for that also. I will offer land, money or road improvements for that access spur. I am here, and I am here on behalf of Mr. Letlieri, to work with my neighbor, financially and physically to accomplish something that's best for both subdivisions. As far as the comments pertaining to the subdivision application, we have applications which are pending. Our fees have been paid; they've Southold Town Planning B* 5 • December 12, 1994 been pending for years. They're actual subdivision applications. We have gone into the SEQR process. We have had a Scoping Session with Chic Voorhis, who was compensated, who represents the Town. At that Scoping Session it was determined that an alternate access over the wetland area must be accomplished in order to proceed. We cannot cross that wetland area without creating impacts which were, in the opinion of the Town's environmental consultants, too severe to handle. Therefore, we cannot proceed under SEQR. We can do an impact statement, we've discussed it. We've had consultants, we've retained En-Consultants, Mr. Roy Haje, but we cannot proceed unless alternate access is provided. That's why we have not proceeded under our SEQR and submitted a DEIS. If we have an access spur, a DEIS will follow. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else here that would like to address this particular application? Mr. Russell: My name is Mr. Russell and we own the adjacent property to the west. We're entirely in favor of the 34 acre set up. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Mr. Cuddy: I would like to make just one point to the Board. We have DOT approval. Mr. Gazza and Mr. Leltieri do not have DOT approval. We have a road that we can go over; despite what he says, Mr. Gazza can't go over his road and I think that should very much be part of the record. Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to address the Cove Beach Estates subdivision? If not, I believe then that all is in order to close the hearing. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 11 Mr. Ward: p.m. Anna K. Plock - This major subdivision is for 5 lots on 21.79 acres, located on existing right of way off North Bayview Rd., approximately-935 feet east of Reydon Ro Southold. Four of the lots are between-1.7 acres and 2.2 acres in size. The fifth lot is a—r#siaLyed area to be conveyed to the Peconic Land Trust. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.2. I notice that the attorney For _9_cpplicant is here. Mr. La ou would just come forward for a second ere are several things that we would lik see put on the map. One w e that the easement for park and recreation be sho on the map. There' ew other things that we have technically that we want to put on the map. We can approve that, subject to, and so before you go into park and recreation and PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G.Wand, Chairman ? Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. ' P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Southold, New York 11971 rj L Fax(-516)765-3136 Mark S. McDonald 516 Telephone 765-1938 Kenneth L. Edwards a P ( ) PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 17, 1994 Daniel L. Morris The Open Space Council P.O. Box 275 Brookhaven, NY 11719 Re: Proposed subdivision of Gazza—Lettieri parcels in East Marion Dear Mr. Morris: I regret to inform you that the Planning Board is unable to notify the Open Space Council in writing of all SEORA related actions. However, you are free to call this office on a regular basis to inquire as to the status of the environmental review of the Gazzo—Lettieri subdivisions on Dam Pond, For your information, a scoping session was held on October 28, 1993. The final scoping outline for the draft DEIS is enclosed for your convenience. Since the developer has not submitted a draft environmental impact statement as of today, the Planning Board has not proceeded with the environmental review. Sincerely, V <�& Valerie Scopoz Town Planner for Richard G. Ward, Chairman enc. The • OPEN " SPACE tilt Council P.O.Box 275,Brookhaven,NY 11719 P8 MS Mr. Richard Ward V5 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. P. 0. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 RE:proposed subdivisions of Gazza-Lettieri parcels in East Marion Dear Mr. Ward, The Open Space Council is very interested in the project recently listed in the Em-imnmental Notice Bulletin. of October 13, 1993 Our major concerns include consideration of the following items: 1. Cluster development plan of the parcels 2. Public acquisition alternatives,Town,County and State 3. Loss of open space,impacts to wildlife and vegetation particularly NYS endangered,threatened species and species of special concern 4. Impacts to Town Trustee owned Dam Pored and its tributaries associated natural resources and coastal processes 5. Growth inducing aspects including traffic burden to NY S route 25 6. Impacts to groundwater quality and quantity Please include the Open Space Council as a"party of interest"in the continuing SEQRA process and inform us of meetings,hearings or publication of the required documents. ectfully, �0Cnv F Daniel L. Mo �//� North Fork Projects Coordinator i 3 i i • PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman '� �'," ✓'_�� George Ritchie Latham,Jr. _ ! 3 '`" Town Hall,53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. o- P.O.Box 1179 Mark S.McDonald - "" Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 12, 1993 Joseph F. Gazza, Applicant and Agent P.O. Box 969 Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Scoping Session for Gazza/Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: Enclosed you will find a summary outline of the scoping session that was held on October 28, 1993 . Please use it as a guide when compiling the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Copies of this outline are being sent to all the coordinating agencies that have been participating in the review of these applications. If any of these agencies want additional information to be added to the summary outline, you will be so notified. If there are any questions or objections about the outline, please call me. Sincerely, Valerie Sco a Senior Planner enc. 0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Wand, Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. - ! '� > Town Hall,53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - = P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald - '` Southold, New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516) 765- 1623 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 12, 1993 To Coordinating Agencies: Re: Scoping Session for Gazza/Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1.2 A joint scoping session was held in Southold Town Hall on October 28, 1993 for all five of the above-noted subdivisions. Enclosed you will find the summary outline of that session. This outline will be used by the applicant to compile a single draft Environmental Impact Statement for the five subdivisions. The Planning Board will use this outline to determine the completeness of the draft. As a coordinating agency, the Planning Board would appreciate your reviewing the enclosed document to ensure that the concerns of your agency are included. If they are not, please commit them to writing within the next few weeks, so that this summary outline can be amended as needed. If we do not hear from you, we will assume your agreement with the contents of this summary outline. Thank you for your time. Z cerely, Valerie Senior Planner cc: Commissioner - Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office - NYSDEC, Suny @ Stony Brook Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of State enc. ds TRUSTEES - y ,r SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President rp�� ti gyp.R SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry E Smith y 1 Sl' Town Hall John B. Tuthill {r 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson yam, a�� P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 l ,; ^�� Southold, New York 11971 � Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Valerie Scopaz FROM: John M. Bredemeyer, RE: Scoping Session : Gaa/Letteri SCTM #22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 31-5-1.2 DATE: November 19, 1993 The Southold Town Trustees are in receipt of your November 12, 1993 memo and the attached scoping outline in the above referenced matter. The outline properly addresses our environmental concerns for inclusion in the impact statement. Since the Trustees are not inclined to approve any exclusive private easement over Trustee lands for this or any site, we will actively participate in the SEQRA review of the access road as it relates to our proprietary, public trust, and environmental authority. We thank you for sharing the scoping outline with us as we now await the EIS. i PP) �5 M5 NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck. NY 11952 516-298-8880 October 28 , 1993 Mr . Richard Ward , Chair Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold , New York 11971 RE : Scoping - Gazza Subdivision application Dear Mr . Ward , I am writing to you , on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council , to discuss the issues that should be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Gazza application which includes creating 12 lots on Dam Pond . The NFEC is particularly concerned about this subdivision because of its location immediately adjacent to Dam Pond which is an extremely sensitive tidal wetland. The sensitivity of this area has been recognized in that it was designated a Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat by the Department of State, and a Critical Environmental Area, by the Suffolk County Legislature . It is important for the DE ! S to focus extensively on the impacts that the subdivision will cause to the proposed site' s natural resource values . I have attached an outline of additional issues that should be discussed in the document . Thank you for including them on your scoping check list for this project . Sincerely , Attachment L ��1 a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper Scoping list - Gazza Subdivision Page 1 i ACCESS f The fact that the site lacks access must be fully d'. scussed in the DEIS . The DEIS should identify an access plan , beth for the subdivision and for each individual lot , and the impacts associated with the access plan should be discussed . Will the access route affect wetlands , have a visual .-.,:act , or _ isturb wildlife utilizing Dam Pond? Will the access plan interfere with fishing or shellfishing opportunities in the Pond? Mitigation € measures , buffers , and setbacks to prevent impacts from occurring should be described. i. i CONSTRUCTION The effects of construction (siltation/erosion) or. the wetlands on-site . and in Dam Pond should be fully discussed . The DEIS should discuss future or potential deveiop:rent on the adjoining parcel . Cumulative .mpacts , on the Dam Pond ecosystem, with that aevelooment should be discussed. Describe all measures to mitigate impacts , including erosion control , setbacks and the delineation of building envelopes . APPROVALS The aoplicant should demonstrate how the project N ; 17 comply With all existing local , county and state laws , including but not nvited to, Suffolk County Health Codes . All additional f permitting agencies including but not limited to Army Corps , DEC, Trustees , and Department of State , should be identified, and compliance with their regulations discussed . 3 LAND USE PLANS C The DEIS should discuss '.his project ' s conformance with the Master Plan . It should also discuss any US/UK recommendations for changes to the Master Plan that affect this site, or the resources found on the site, including but not limited to wildlife habitat , visual character , open space protection , and the fact that development of the site may adversely impact the Peconic Estuary . .Pecc.^...'mendat 'ons ' n Southold ' s Local �'4aterfront Revi,tal ' zat'.on Plan should also be discussed . Demonstrate compliance . J 'i 1 'E i i 4 I� Scoping list - Gazza Subdivision Page 2 TRANSPORTATION Discuss condition of roads and current level of use, discuss proposed increase in use on Route 25 , include cumulative increases from this project , and the adjacent proposed subdivision . GROUND AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES The aquifers and on-site recharge , depth to water , quality and flow of groundwater on the site should be discussed . Water usage should be estimated . Source of drinking water (public/private wells ) shou '' d be icentified. Describe on-site drainage patterns and discuss run-off containment . Dam Pend , Orient Harbor and their relationship to the Peconic Estuary should be thoroughly discussed . The National Estuary Program ano the objectives of the Program for the Peconic Estuary should be described . The Brown Tide Study and its recommendations should also be discussed and compliance demonstrated . TERRESTRIAL AND WILDLIFE List and describe all types of vegetation on-site, include discussion of community types and their value as habitat . List all species of wildlife that may utilize the site , include indigenous and migratory species . ! nclude the results of an on- site field inventory . Identify any rare , endangered or threatened species that may use this site . Discuss their habitat needs . Discuss long and short-term impacts to the wildlife. WETLANDS Describe wetlands on-site and their associationto Orient Harbor and the Peconic Estuary . Describe wetland values . Discuss the objectives of the Tidal Wetlands regulatio.n.s and describe compliance. Discuss the known impacts of fertilization and run-off on wetlands . Describe measures that will be taken to prevent those impacts frog: occurring here . Scoping list - Gazza Subdivision Page 3 FISH AND SHELLFISH Discuss fishing and shellfishing opportunities available in Dam Pond and Orient Harbor . Discuss the impact of nitrogen loading on shellfish beds . Discuss economic implications of shellfish bed closures in Southold . OPEN SPACE Discuss the objectives of the open space programs and policies of the Town , the county and the state in regard to coastal areas . Describe how this project wil . Teet those objectives . FLOOD PLAIN AND COASTAL EROSION Identify and map any areas within the Flood Plain on the project site . Discuss FEMA regulations . NYS Coastal Erosion Management regulations should be discussed and compliance demonstrated . ALTERNATIVES i . Reduce size of lots to one acre and cluster away from wetlands . 2 . Public acquisition . Identify possible sources of funding including County Open Space Program, Town Open Space Program and state Environmental Assistance Funds , 3 . No action. - .. . CR � iii CRAMERV JfSOCIATESENVIRONMENG CONSULTANTS ✓S t, MS October 28, 1993 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Planner Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dam Pond, Marion 5 Pending Subdivisions Scope of Draft EIS Dear Valerie: As per our meeting of October 28, attached,please find the final scope of the Draft EIS for this project. This outline incorporates changes discussed during the scoping meeting. This outline can be circulated to the applicant, involved agencies and parties of interest for the Purpose of establishing an understanding of the issues which the Town will be seeking to have incorporated into the document. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you, and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, r arles J. Voorhis,CEP,AICD enc: scoping outline 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 f DAM POND,MARION-SUBDMSIONS SEQR SCOPING OUTLINE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SUMMARY A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS The summary will include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant,beneficial and adverse impacts,(issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternatives considered E. Matters to be decided(permits,approvals,funding) 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE,NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history--History of acquisition and past use 2. Public need for the project,and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans--summarize municipal objectives from land use plan section 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 C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT L Total site area—describe unique features of the site which constrain use a) tidal wetlands b) freshwater wetlands c) surface water d) shallow groundwater e) unique habitat 2. Site Coverage Quantities—prepare a table of estimated site coverage quantities a) estimated building coverage b) estimated driveway coverage c) estimated subdivision road coverage d) estimated landscaped area(fertilized/unfertilized) e) estimated natural area 3. Structures--expected structures based on market and zoning code 4. Water Supply--ability to meet Article 4 and water quality standards 5. Sanitary Disposal--necessary fill and ability to conform to SCDHS design C VIRONM V ww2NA � CONSUIATES Page l ENVIRONMENT` G CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist requirements 6. Stormwater Disposal—capacity and design requirements D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION L Construction a) total construction period anticipated—timing of development b) schedule of construction activities—particularly due to wildlife sensitive periods c) future potential development,on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation—road/recharge dedication;open space dedication if applicable; are any future piers or waterfront structures contemplated b) schedule of operation—if applicable E. APPROVALS 1. Permit approvals—list agency,permit and status a) Town of Southold Planning Board—subdivision b) Town of Southold Trustees--use of land;wetlands c) SC Dept.of Health Services—sanitary disposal and water supply d) NYS Dept.of Environmental Conservation--tidal and freshwater wetlands; protection of waters;water supply if greater than 45 gpm e) Army Corps of Engineers—if activity below spring high water,CZM consistency review,if applicable II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material--summarize test hole information 2. Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use 3. Topography--utilize topo map based on Y contour intervals a) description of topography at project site - slopes - prominent or unique features B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) depth to groundwater b) seasonal fluctuations/tidal fluctuations c) water table contours and direction of flow d) discuss groundwater-surface water inter-relationship;discharge to surface water; tidal fluctuations e) determine existing water quality beneath the site in anticipated water supply zones CRAMER, VQRWI'� SOCIATES Paget ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS • Dam Pond,Marlon-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checldist f) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - location of existing wells - public/private water supply - agricultural uses 2. Surface Water a) describe Dam Pond estuary b) NYSDEC surface water classification c) determine tidal influences d) present water quality and salinity C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area;classify into habitats b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique,rare and endangered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity c) contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information concerning unique vegetation,habitats or wildlife species d) describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened and species of special concern 2. Wildlife a) perform on-site field inspections to determine wildlife occupying the site b) consult references to determine species expected to occupy site based on habitat type c) list species associated with site;differentiate between species observed on site and species present on site;identify endangered,threatened and species of special concern d) contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information concerning unique vegetation,habitats or wildlife species e) describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened and species of special concern 3. Wetlands a) describe wetlands and characteristics b) outline NYSDEC wetlands classifications and discuss importance/benefits of each type on or adjacent to the site Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation Services a) describe access to the site,main road and internal road circulation CRAMER, VGRH1VOCIATES Page3 ENVIRONMENT �1G CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist b) describe existing level of use on Main Road--ferry traffic,seasonal traffic - am.and p.m.peak hour traffic flow - vehicle mix - source of eidsting traffic c) make not of pedestrian environment and public transportation,if applicable - a.m.and p m.peak hour traffic flow - vehicle mix - source of existing traffic B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area - make note of Cove Beach Estates and graphically identify open space areas b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area - Master Plan - Draft LWRP - Southold Land Use Task Force draft recommedations - SC Planning Commission recommended acquisition parcels report - Governers Task Force draft recommendations C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Educational facilities 2. Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Recreational facilities 5. Utilities D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the area b) description of natural areas of significant architectural design 2. Historic/Archaeological Resources--include Cultural Resources Assessment if completed 9S a) describe existing historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community,or included on Statewide Inventory b) determine if previous historic structures existed on project site through review of historic maps available at libraries C) contact NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau for information pertaining to history and prehistory of the site III. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Review each aspect of the environmental setting in Section IV and provide a qualitative CRAMER, V� RHl SO MENTAC I A T E S Page ENVIRONL `� f G CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist discussion of impacts with quantification of impacts where possible. Impacts that are not significant need only be discussed to the point where this is demonstrated. Significant impacts should be discussed in detail appropriate for the scope of the impact. The following key issues are noted: • Sediment control and erosion protection methods should be described to minimize siltation of wetlands and habitat areas and minimize erosion of proposed fill areas. • Excavation for basements and sanitary systems should be discussed as related to soil quantities and erosion protection. ' Soils/Topographic Elevation/Depth to groundwater as related to functioning of sanitary systems • Quantity and location of fill necessary to create properly functioning sanitary systems. ' Nitrogen concentration in recharge and environmental/ecological impact on Dam Pond via groundwater undertlow. A nitrogen budget should be performed,and discussion of direction of flow and setbacks should be discussed as related to these impacts. • Discuss project in view of Article 6 and SCDHS design criteria. Discuss Board of Review process,if applicable for,sanitary systems. • Water quality beneath site and suitability for water supply wells. • Impact of groundwater withdrawal from supply wells on existing hydrology. ' Impact of the project on surface water by overland runoff from roads and fertilized areas. • Impact on significant habitats and specific species associated with these habitats. • Fragmentation of significant habitat particularly in view of Dam Pond and associated wetlands. Consideration should be given to the peninsula area,and alignment of habitat/open space areas with the adjacent Cove Beach Estates open space areas. • Impact on ability of NYSDEC designated wetlands to continue to provide benefits identified in Section H. • Conformance of project to land use plans and planning efforts/open space preservation strategies of the Town of Southold. ' Vehicle trip generation and ability of roads to accommodate traffic • Impact of the project on cultural resources including visual,and historic/archaeological resources which may be identified as a result of Section II. IV. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section III. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material on site b) reuse topsoil for landscaped areas 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites—proposed buffer areas and conservation easements c) design and implement soil erosion control plan 3. Topography a) avoid construction on areas or steep slope b) design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope CRAMER, VC RHk SOCIATES Page S ENVIRONMENTAL `'1� �,�G CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) ensure adequate sanitary design b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation examples: - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping b) design adequate stormwater control system C. TERRESTRIAL AND 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) time construction activities to avoid wildlife impacts Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation—design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. 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. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Police/Fire protection--ensure efficient access to residences on the site 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) provide buffering to improve aesthetics b) minimize road surface area and significant land disturbance 2 Historic/Archaeological—to be determined based on Section H. V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section IV that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section IV. CRAMER, V� R� R� SOCIONSU Page ENVIRONMENTAL VG CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist VI. 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. Conceptual sketch plans should accompany alternative design plans to provide a basis for comparison and analysis. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN 1. Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes--avoid crossing of Trustees land 2 Clustering a) propose a cluster plan which avoids sensitive areas of the site as identified in Section IT(i.e.shallow groundwater,wetlands areas and interconnection condors) 3. Transfer of Development Rights a) determine other potentially suitable lands to receive development rights from all or a portion of the subdivisions with the intent of minimizing impact upon sensitive areas 4. Acquisition a) discuss feasibility of acquisition of all or the most sensitive portions of the overall project site in order to minimize impact upon sensitive areas B. NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers'need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section III that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. VIII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Indicate if project will cause additional growth in the area which would not otherwise occur. Consider access,utilities and precedent. DG APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studies,reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. Technical exhibits(if any)at a legible scale C. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included CRAMER, V �\` SOCIATES �7 ENVIRONMENT ' JF VG CONSULTANTS �J PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS "° F ;j SCOTT L. HARRIS •, Supervisor Richard G. Ward,Chairman _ a ??y✓.,�J George Ritchie Latham,Jr. _ "�I ± >„ % Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - P. O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 6 , 1993 The Southold Town Planning Board will hold a scoping session on the Gazza/Lettieri subdivision, on Thursday, October 28, 1993 at 9: 30 a.m. in the Supervisor' s conference room at Southold Town Hall, Main Rd. , Southold. Richard G. Ward Chairman • • 5 U r3Fit�. �Og�FFOL K�oGy� co co 2 SCOTT L. HARRIS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ,yam �� Supervisor Richard ward, Chairman C� /�0 Town lir. 53095 17 Rod GcorQc Ritchie Latham,Jr. `� P.O. Box 117 Z p Bennett Orlowski.Jr. Southold,New York•09,7;Ci' Mark S. McDonald 21— Kenneth L. Edwards Fax(516)765 81� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone(516)765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD t= �>N October 1, 1993 "'^ a ol:�hs?3i�r • a til p L C- v ui Joseph F. Gazza C hec.K indraweir, = �FX:3L, P.O. Box 969 U. cL4m 3 Ogden Lane W O Quogue, NY 11959 N Re: Scoping Session for Gazza/Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-19 , 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: Pursuant to our conversation, a scoping session has been sec for Thursday, October 28 , 1993 at 9: 30 a.m. for the above mentioned subdivision. Please notify your environmental consultant of this date. The scoping session will be held in the Supervisor' s conference room at Southold Town Hall. A copy of the Positive Declaration was sent to you under separate cover. The fee for the session will be $350. 00 , and must be paid one week prior to this meeting. If this is not convenient, please notify us immediately and the session will be re-scheduled. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. .— Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Q Chairman cc: Commissioner - Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office - NYSDEC, Suny @ Stony Brook 1_ Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission , New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of State M M o a c PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS i SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Warta,Chairman '•.� '+0.,�0+�..^��y" George Ritchie Latham,Jr. ' '_! '.o Town Hall,53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald """- Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1623 October 1, 1993 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Joseph F. Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Scoping Session for Gazza/Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1.2 Dear Mr. Gazza: Pursuant to our conversation, a scoping session has been set for Thursday, October 28, 1993 at 9: 30 a.m. for the above mentioned subdivision. Please notify your environmental consultant of this date. The scoping session will be held in the Supervisor' s conference room at Southold Town Hall. A copy of the Positive Declaration was sent to you under separate cover. The fee for the session will be $350. 00, and must be paid one week prior to this meeting. If this is not convenient, please notify us immediately and the session will be re-scheduled. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Commissioner - Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office - NYSDEC, Suny @ Stony Brook Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of State 1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTTL. HARRIS pe Richard O. Ward,Chairman Su rvisor George Richie Latham,Jr. __ "�/ '� �J�.r'. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ___ - P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald m �- Southold, Nm York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: All Involved Agencies From: Southold Town Planning Board Re: Scoping session for Gazza/Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20 , 21, 22 and 31-5-1.2 Date: October 1, 1993 A scoping session has been set for Thursday, October 28, 1993 at -9: 30 a.m. for the above mentioned subdivision. The scoping session will be held in the Supervisor' s conference room at Southold Town Hall. A copy of the Positive Declaration is enclosed. 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 fax number is 765-1823. cc: Commissioner - Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office - NYSDEC, Suny @ Stony Brook Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of State V PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS w n ;! SCOTT L. HARRIS C:p - -�, _ te.'. Supervisor Richard G. Ward. Chairman r','✓*, "" ;� . George Ritchie Latham,Jr. �J ,� Town Hall,53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. .,.__. ,.�' P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald - Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 14, 1993 Joseph F. Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Odgen Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Proposed minor subdivision Bernice Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-20 Dear Mr. Gazza: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 13 , 1993 : BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, makes a determination of significance, and grants a Positive Declaration. Enclosed please find copies of the Positive Declaration for your records. Sincerely, / Rich�r Chairman enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward.Chairman - '='^,�- Rna� "'♦�� George Ritchie Latham,Jr. " '; " ��-` Town Hall.53095 Main Road ----- Bennett Orlowsld,Jr. ___. P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald '""" Southold, New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Address. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: June 24, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The 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. Title of Action: Minor Subdivision Bernice Lettieri East Marion, New York SEQR Status: Type I Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a subdivision of 4 acres into two (2) lots. The project site is in a Critical Environmental Area and contains wetlands associated with Dam Pond. Four additional subdivision Projects are pending in the same geographic area and will involve common and potentially significant impacts. SCTrii Number: 1000-22-3-20 Location: The site consists of 4 acres and is located northwest of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 186.35 feet east of a point 1,414.51 feet north of Main Road at a point 1,950 east.of Stars Road, East Marion. Bernice Letticri SEQR Determination Comments: The Planning Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: Minor Subdivision of Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-31-5-1.2 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-21 Minor Subdivision of Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: (1) The project has been evaluated through a Long EAF Part III which discusses in detail environmental and planning aspects of the project. (2) The action(s) will result in significant loss of open space in a Town and County - designated Critical Environmental Area which contains unique habitat and resources associated with Dam Pond. (3) The action(s) will result in impairment of the viability of unique habitat areas including overgrown field, tidal wetlands, dunelands and first growth woods. The diversity of habitats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significant ecological impact. (4) The action(s) may cause impact to the surface waters of Dam Pond in the form of erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff, and nitrogen load. Groundwater is shallow beneath the site and may result in impacts from sanitary system installation. In addition the actions will require water supply and use in an area of limited water supply potential. (5) The action should be considered in a context which will seek to maximize open space retention in a sensitive Critical Environmental Area through coordination of contiguous open space with adjoining parcels including Cove Beach Estates and four (4) additional currently pending subdivisions noted herein. 6 The� actions will cause potential visual impacts.7� The action(s) require common access and will share some utilities and impacts. The viability of the access from the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcel has been questioned by the Town Trustees as this access may require a road crossing over Trustees land -- an action which the Trustees have indicated they are not inclined to permit. Access to the subject Bernice Lettieri piece as proposed requires this wetlands road crossing. (8) An environmental impact statement would permit the proper consideration of generic impacts associated with the combination of the five (5) projects, and allow for reasonable mitigation measures and alternatives to be explored. For Further Information: Contact Person: Richard Ward, Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Page 2 of 3 Bernice Lettieri SEQR Determination Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone No.: (516) 765-1801 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. Transportation, John A. Falotico, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788 NYS Dept. of State, Mohabir Persaud, 162 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12231-0001 Applicant Page 3 of 3 • �u�3Fic� JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA MS ATTORNEY AT LAW A:5P.O. Box 969 5 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE, NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766 (DAY AND EVENING) So 1T�o11 Tkaw/ PtANdta9 eP�. 9- 9- 93 RE Pru,�scd ►N IA/O rL ./�-{{ A1Jt�fWr Ar 0AM /"V `N� ./t.-rm - iUvo - 22 - 3 - 1 9 zoJ 11A L`z 4 2- C k4:,y .CIM:ry Al WMIJ � #"c 'lI K�wN'1` ;-N'k `sow. �oM� f^e2p.^••'A QP Lt :;u—r T rel' � `7 1 -p q XA Oe 1- ' + A /�,, • •� cio G�Yf � Y. PLo 4N J✓� r: yl.d- 4v S A-- e yf'.Jq �GArA V/.sl f'ryN /q 'Ln.J fti s4- y✓. I� 1 M�Jf �,,,J/ �✓.p.LA Pcr,,.✓:4 i�w ��tiu� � Oee APd Mc Ar: e vl.J•�w,II y � L,4-1 l~ 40 rV a t, _ S�nnby. r Y 111711! i:U P fly L, II;I I3 1 NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 August 4 , 1993 Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Gazza, Lettieri Property Dam Pond, East Marion Dear Chairman Ward and Planning Board members, I am writing to express our concern regarding the action taken at the July 12, 1993 Planning Board meeting regarding the above mentioned project. As you will recall, rather than issue a Positive Declaration at that time, the Board instead permitted Mr . Gazza additional time to attempt to mitigate the environmental concerns outlined in the review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) . In particular, the issue of access (or lack thereof) to the property would be addressed by Mr. Gazza. We are extremely dismayed by this action. A conditioned negative declaration, which is what your action of July 12 could lead to, cannot be used in this case. This is a Type I Action in a Critical Environmental Area, containing wetlands. It is the function of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to further determine the significant impacts of this project, and at that time the applicant may attempt to mitigate those impacts. To allow the applicant to try to resolve the issues raised at this point would deprive the public of a full review of all potential impacts of this project. Furthermore, the applicant implied that the only "real" issue to be addressed was that of access. While it is true that this is a major concern -- in that the proposed road crosses wetlands -- this is not by any means the only factor which concerns us about this site. Some of the additional issues are briefly outlined as follows. The threat to Dam Pond through erosion and nitrogen contamination is a serious concern. The unique habitat currently provides nesting and foraging opportunities that will be put at extreme risk. Several of the parcels have depths to groundwater of only 5-6 feet -- resulting in the need for extensive fill before construction. Sanitary system installation could significantly impair both surface and groundwater. The presence of marsh and tidal wetlands on several of the sites requires setbacks that may preclude building on some of the proposed lots. a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper It is obvious that a site in such an environmentally fragile area requires an Environmental Impact Statement to fully consider the impacts of development. The LEAF only touches the most glaring concerns, the EIS will reveal the full significance of these impacts, at which time mitigation measures may be considered. The North Fork Environmental Council respectfully requests that the Planning Board issue a Positive Declaration for these five projects at your next meeting. We firmly believe that any other action would be a violation of the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OL i n�d aL evy NFEC Southold ordinator �o t ° GA PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G.Ward, Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr. F> _ g i TowHall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards ;,.' n Mark S.McDonald ���'�""l- Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1623 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 10, 1993 Joseph F. Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Proposed minor subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond: Joseph F. Gazza (1) Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph F. Gazza (2) SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 31-5-1.2 Dear Mr. Gazza: At last night' s public meeting, the Planning Board decided, at your request, to reserve decision on the environmental determination for the above noted subdivisions until the next meeting on September 13, 1993 . Since you requested this delay, it is our understanding that you also agreed to waive your right to pursue action against this Board with regard to delaying of the determination until -- September 13, 1993. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward 'wS Chairman Southold Town PlIning Board 11 • August 9 , 1993 Ayes : r. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, r. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Determination Mr. Ward: Stev s Bluff - SCTM 1000-83-2-8 . We ' ll hold that one over. Francis B. Rauch & R. Stew rt Rauch - SCTM# 1000-9-9-22 . What' the leasure of the Board? Mr. Orlowski : I make motion that BE IT RESOLVED tha the thold Town Planning Board, acting under the State vironme t 1 Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status, nd as lead ency makes a determination of non- significance d grants a Ne tive Declaration. Mr. Latham- I ' ll second that. Mr. War . Motion seconded. All i favor? Ayes : Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. rlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Joseph Gazza - This minor subdiv sion is for 2 lots on 5 . 393 acres and is located north of extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 534 . 7 feet west of point, 1, 170 . 81 feet north of Suffolk County Control Monument No. 10-1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion, between the proposed minor subdivisions of Bernice Lettieri and Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri . The applicant is here. Joseph Gazza: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Joseph Frederick Gazza, Ogden Lane, Quogue. We met a month ago, and I believe the Board was on the edge of making a determination as to either positive or negative on the SEQRA. I had expressed to the Board that I needed a month to find a way out of getting a positive determination and I have been doing a little bit of homework. I had a meeting - I ' ll present to the Chairman a letter from the Peconic Land Trust . I had a meeting with the members of the Peconic Land Trust. Actually, we had three meetings and I asked' them to study the proposal of the various minor subdivisions and to come up with an idea. And they came up with the property - the Old Oyster Farm - that was on the Peconic Bay, and received a negative declaration from this Board. I asked them if that same reasoning could be applied to my subdivision in East Marion, and if so, could they Southold Town Planning Board 12 • August 9 , 1993 come up with a plan that might be acceptable to present to the Board to receive a negative declaration. That was the first meeting. Then we had a second meeting, and then a third meeting. And they came up with a plan. They inspected the property. They had their own environmentalist look at it. And they have a reduced density idea, shrinking the number of my lots way down preserving substantial open space, predominantly on the peninsula, and the north side of the peninsula. They have coordinated their plan with a plan which they prepared for this Board, in connection with the Cove Beach Estates subdivision. They showed me a rather elaborate plan that they developed for open space and public property. The only problem with the plan is that it involves public funding to acquire that portion of the peninsula that they would like to see remain 'undeveloped and used in conjunction with the open space or public property on the Cove Beach Estates subdivision. And they asked for a month to see if that funding has the possibility of being obtained. They recognize, and they explained to me, that no decision would be made within a month; but they had a month to approach their different prospective funders, I guess one of which is going to be the Town of Southold, in connection with their overall plan. They said they would have some direction for me. Now, I expressed to the Board a number of times , I don' t want positive declaration. I want to work with the Board to overcome the subdivision hurdles to get a map that everybody likes . And, I think the map that the Peconic Land Trust is developing is sure going to be like by everyone from the environmental and land use point of view. It would be liked by the owner/developer, myself and Mr. Lettieri, coupled with public funding for the acquisition of a portion of our property. That ' s my case. If you want to give the Peconic Land Trust a month to pursue that, I have no problems with giving the Board the additional time under SEQRA. Mr. McDonald: Are you asking us for something? Mr. Gazza: I 'm asking for another month to give the. . . Mr. McDonald: You would like us to give you another month. To hold this in abeyance another month? Mr. Gazza: That' s correct. Mr. McDonald: Let me ask you a further question. If you proceeded on this along these lines, you would withdraw these and make application with a new application, on the basis of whatever discussions you had with the Land Trust . Mr. Gazza: The Land Trust development plan, which is only a sketch, involves a subdivision, and it goes along with the minor Southold Town Penning Board 13 • August 9 , 1993 subdivisions that I had proposed, to a degree, but to a much less density. Mr. McDonald: You would withdraw these and submit that in place of these? Mr. Gazza: I won't say withdraw. I will say amend, based on the Peconic Land Trust . . . Mr. McDonald: If you don't withdraw these, we' ll be negotiating with you, and I won't negotiate with you. I, personally - I won' t speak for anybody elses vote. I won' t negotiate on this . Because the law says we're not supposed to. Mr. Gazza: I don' t understand what you mean by negotiate. Mr. McDonald: You' re going to say you' re going to amend your plan, to make a more environmentally sensitive plan. That' s negotiating with us over these plans . You have an application in front of us, and we're ready to make a determination. ' Now you want to make some changes so we don' t give you that determination. That ' s negotiation. And the law says we're not supposed to do that. So, if you're prepared in the future to withdraw these applicaitons to make that application, I could justify saying, "What's another month" , because you're requesting it. But if you're saying that you 're never going to withdraw these, all we're doing is wasting a month because, come a month we 're going to go ahead and make our determinations, if the votes are here. If the votes aren't here then. . . Mr. Gazza: Well, I 'm attempting not to get a positive declaration determination. And if I can amend the map to the satisfaction of everyone, to win your confidence, as the map that was prepared for the Oyster Farm property, why not proceed along those lines? Mr. McDonald: Because the best we can make out, it' s illegal . You have to withdraw the application and make a fresh application on the basis of these new plans . Mr. Gazza: Well, maybe when the new plans become available, the Board could look at the new plan compared to the old plan and determine at that time whether a new application would be necessary or a modification would be necessary. Since I haven' t created the new plan, it' s being prepared by an organization that' s in between the two of us, so to speak. Mr. Latham: Can they do that in a month? :, Mr. Gazza: Well , they have a sketch ready. But the sketch and the layout involves the acquisition of a substantial portion of our property. And if the funding is available for the acquisition, I will proceed and work with them towards obtaining this goal . And they said within a month they'd have a better Southold Town Poning Board 14 • August 9, 1993 idea if the funding would be available or not. I 'm just going by what they stated, and they wrote a letter to the Board concerning that topic. If they come back to us a month from now and say the funding is not going to be available. There is no interest on the part of the Town or the County or other agencies, in utilizing available funds for the acquisition of this property, then we will proceed with the application that ' s before you, and take it as it goes . Mr. Orlowski : Looking at the last report of the Open Space Committee, they don' t have any money left. It would probably have to be funded through the County. Mr. Gazza: They mentioned something about a Laurel Lake. . . Mr. McDonald: Yeah, but there ' s no way you're going to see any of that money. That ' s watershed money. You don't qualify. Mr. Gazza: See, I 'm not the expert on obtaining money, but. . . Mr. Ward: But you realize that doing it tonight' s another 30 days, or roughly, that this project is going to get postponed, if in fact we don' t make a determination tonight . Mr. Gazza: An additional 30 days nothing will happen. Mr. Ward: And you realize, the record is going to state you requested that. Mr. Gazza: That ' s correct. Mr. Ward: Alright. How' s the Board feel about that? Mr. Orlowski : It' s been eight years 'already so 30 days . . Mr. Ward: I know, that's what I 'm saying. Mr. McDonald: The problem I have is, if he doesn' t withdraw these, say it doesn' t work out, the plan doesn' t work out, the money is not there, we just lost 30 more days . If it does work out he has to withdraw these anyhow. The best I can make out, he has to withdraw these no matter what. Mr. Latham: We can't look . at two plans . . . Mr. McDonald: So, six of one. Mr. Orlowski : Yeah, but he doesn' t know yet. , Mr. Ward: He doesn' t know whether he' s withdrawing or not Mr. McDonald: My feeling would be to go ahead with the determinations . Because it doesn' t make any difference. Either Southold Town P Aning Board 15 • August 9 , 1993 he' s going to withdraw them and then the determinations don' t matter any more, or he' s going to be 30 days ahead. (change tape) Mr. McDonald: I 'm appreciative of what you ' re trying to do because I think you 're going in a great direction. I do. You may not think that, but I think that what you ' re doing is great. And we're finally beginning to move ahead with this thing, and I 'm appreciative of that. But I don't think we're doing you any favors, to tell you the truth, to give you the 30 more days , because it doesn' t matter one way or the other. Mr. Gazza : Well, if I get a positive declaration, then my next step is to go to environmental consultants to have a report prepared. . . Mr. McDonald: No, you do the exact same thing you' re doing. You wait to see how the plan comes out, and if it works, if the plan works , then you just withdraw these and make that application, which you ' ll have to do anyhow. Ms . Scopaz: I think that ' s a very important point. The determination of positive declaration -does not mean that you automatically have to go through with the environmental impact statement. You can still continue exploring your options and make a decision whether you wish to withdraw the application that ' s been given a positive declaration or submit this new application that you will get with the Land Trust. This forced determination doesn't put you under a gun or a time frame to act, but the Board is in a difficult position by not acting. Mr. Gazza: When the Board acted on the Oyster Farm subdivision and you gave that a negative declaration, it was based on the layout and the plan being so acceptable and so proper, that the impacts had all been addressed. Am I correct in making that assumption? Mr. Ward: That ' s essentially correct. Mr. Gazza: OK. So, if my plan can be modified or a portion of the lots acquired with public funding, wouldn' t that be along the same lines? Mr. McDonald: Yes . If you make a new application. We' re in a technical aspect of the law. That' s the problem. It may not be the most sensible part of the law, but it is a part of the law. Because you ' re a type 1 - I know you're going to say you weren' t a type 1 when this started - and that' s in -the. record from last time. So, we 've kind of settled that. We' re not agreeing, I know you don ' t agree. . . Mr. Gazza: We don' t agree on that. Southold Town Ploning Board 16 August 9 , 1993 Mr. McDonald: But because of that, we can' t sit down and say, "Well, if you do X, Y and Z then we' ll give you a negative declaration. " We ' re not allowed to do that. And that ' s what happens - if you come in with this plan and try ( inaudible) on these applications , that' s what it' s going to be. You' re going to say, "If I do this , this and this will you change your minds and not give me a positive declaration?" Mr. Gazza : I 'm not asking you to change your minds . If you give me a positive declaration, then I 'd ask you to change your mind. But, you haven' t made a decision yet. Mr. McDonald: No, but we are negotiating - it has every appearance - and it is in reality a negotiation for a negative declaration. Mr. Latham: Right now it is . Mr. McDonald: And you 're not supposed to do it. Mr. Ward: If you were to come back a month from now, or two months from now, whenever it ' s resolved, with a new plan, what it would need, if we give it a positive declaration tonight on the plan that you 've given us, you would withdraw the plan that you have in tonight and resubmit a new one. Mr. Latham: Just clear the decks . Mr. Ward: But you' re going to lose another month by doing this . Mr. Gazza: I 've studied that. Suppose that the plan that I come back, is the same plan but the understanding is that every other lot or the lots on the north side of the right of way are to be acquired for public purpose. So, the plan would be the same but I would not be the owner or developer of half the lots on the maps because they would be going for a public purpose, acquired by either the County or the Town as lots . The plan stays the same. It gets a negative declaration with the stipulation that the County or the Town is going to acquire those lots designated X, Y and Z . Mr. Ward: Well, I think at this point if the applicant is willing to state for the record he'd like a postponement, I don' t know that we 'd oppose that. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels . Mr. McDonald: I think we' re wasting his time, but it ' s his time. Mr. Ward: I agree. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that we hold this for another 30 days at the request of the applicant. Mr. Orlowski : Second. Southold Town ning Board 17 August 9, 1993 Mr. McDonald: Rather, let me amend that, to our next public meeting. Mr. Ward: September 13th. Is there a second? Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: All those in favor? Ayes : Mr.McDonald, Mr. Latham,Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Let the record show that it' s for the four applications before us which is Joseph Gazza I, Joseph Gazza II , Bernice Lettieri, Andrew Lettieri. The motion addresses all four applications . Mr. Latham: What about Grundbesitzer? Mr. Ward: Yeah five. It ' s five blocks . SITE PLA Final Determ' nations : Mr. Ward: Lin Ta art - This proposed site lan is for a 930 square foot etail antiques and decorat' a gift shop located on Main Road in S thold. SCTM# 1000-53- -2 . Mr. McDonald: Mr Ch irman, I make a tion that BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold wn Planning Board, acting under the State Environm ntal Q ity Review Act, established itself as lead agency, an as ea d agency makes a determination of non-significance and gr s a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ward: Is there a se nd. Mr. Orlowski : Secon . Mr. Ward: Motion econded. All i favor? Ayes : Mr. McD ald, Mr. Latham, Mr. rlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: O posed? Motion carried. Mr. McDon d: I 'd like to make a further m tion. WHEREA Linda Taggart is the owner of the prInt erty known and designated as Linda Taggart Retail Gifts and iques Store, SCTM# 1000-53-2-2 located on Route 25, Greenport; and Southold Town Paning Board 21 • August 9, 1993 Mr. Ward: Law in relation to yard sale permits . Mr. McDonald: I move that we send our comments to the Town Board. Mr. Orlowski : Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes : Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski , Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Is there no further business before the Board tonight? Mr. Orlowski? Mr. Orlowski : No. No comments . Mr. Ward: Mr. McDonald? Mr. McDonald: No. Mr. Ward: Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham: No. Mr. Ward: Ms . Scopaz? Ms . Scopaz : No. Linda Levy - North Fork Environmental Council - I 'm the Southold coordinator. I do just want to put on public record that, while the NFEC would be very pleased to see any kind of development done with the Peconic Land Trust on the property that Mr. Gazza discussed with you tonight, which we know as the Dam Pond property, we feel very strongly that as it now stands should have a positive declaration. And whether he comes back again next month, with another reason to delay the positive. . . I mean this is month after month and we need another 30 days, another 30 days . . .this plan as it stands right now should receive a positive declaration and if he wants to come in with something else and withdraw the plan, we would love to see that . That would be the best of all possible worlds as far as we ' re concerned, is to see this plan withdrawn and a new plan come in that does preserve the wetlands . . .public acquisition would be wonderful . . .preserves the open space. But as this plan stands right now, it needs to receive a positive declaration. And there 's nothing he can do to make that change, and I would really hope that 30 days from now, or whenever the next meeting is , no matter what he comes in with, if this plan is going to stand as it does now and he doesn' t withdraw it, that he receive a positive declaration. I just thought I 'd get that on the Southold Town Aning Board 22 • August 9 , 1993 record so if anything comes up in the future, you 've got it. Thanks . Mr. Ward: Is there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Orlowski : So moved. Mr. Ward: Moved. Second? Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: All in favor? Ayes : Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8 : 15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Martha Jones I Richard G. Ward, Chairman PECONIC LAND TRUST TEL No .516-283-0235 179 9 ,93 16 :27, No .005 P .02 PECONIC LAND TRUST SqBrla�5 30 Jagger Lane,P.O.Box 2088,Southampton,NY 11969 (516)283-3195 Fax j516)28M235 09,6 August 9, 1993 Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town of Southold, Town Hall 53095 Main Road M . Southold, New York 11971 z -. Re: Lands of Lettieri and Gazza at Dam Pond, East Marion Dear Mr.Ward: Recently, John Halsey and I met with Joe Gazza to discuss the future use and ownership of the above referenced property. Mr. Gazza expressed an interest in looking at alternatives to the full-yield subdivision plan which is currently being reviewed by the Planning Board. The Peconic Land Trust would be interested in working with the owners of the property on a plan which provides the owners with a means to realize the equity in their Property while also protecting the integrity and natural character of the land and surrounding environment. I understand that the Planning Board may be ready make a determination of significance under SEQRA regulations with respect to the current plan, however, I would like to request that you postpone making a decision in this regard for at least one month or until the Peconic Land Trust has had the opportunity to review some alternatives with the owners. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Timo au 'el Assistant Director cc: Joe Gazza ...m...r•- r^r{ .•.��r^.atm �.+..=2 i r • • � Pb THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY July 15 , 1993 To: Town of Southold Planning Department and Planning Board Members RE : DAM POND PROJECTS: SCTM #1000, 22-3-19, 20 , 21 On behalf of the local league, based on our in depth studies of surface and ground water, we urge you to do a comprehensive study and render "positive declarations" on said projects . The fragile ecosystem in the Dam Pond area and the impact of proposed projects should be reviewed prior to any decision. Thank you for your attention to our concerns . Sincerely, Johanna Norphyam Natural Resource Chair PO Box 1053 Southold NY 11971 765-5971 - iisl! 0 Southold Town Planni•Board 7 12, 1993 Determinations: Mr. Ward: Joseph F. Gazza -- I -- This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 4.915 acres and is located west of Dam Pond beginning at a point 1,414.51 feet north of Main Road that is 1,950 feet east of Stars Road, East Marion. SCTM#k 1000--22--3--19. Joseph F. Gazza -- II -- This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 5.393 acres and is located north of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 534.7 feet west of a point 1 ,170.81 feet north of Suffolk County Control Monument No. 10--1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion, between the proposed minor subdivisions of Bernice Lettieri and Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri. SCTM#k 1.000--22--3--21 . Bernice Lettieri -- This minor subdivision is for 2 lots on 4 acres and is located northwest of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 186.35 feet east of a point 1 ,414.51 feet north of Main Road at a point 1 ,950 east of Stars Road, East Marion. SCPM#D 1000--22--3--?0. Andrew Lettieri. -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 10.67 acres and is on the north side of SR 25, 1900 feet east of Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM#k 1000--31--5--1 .2. Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri -- 'this minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 6.3 acres and is located on a western point of Dam Pond, primarily west of a point 1,170.81 feet north of a Suffolk County Control Monument No. 10--1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion. SCPM#k 1000--22--3--22. Mr. Ward: Are Gazza and Lettieri here? Joseph Gazza: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I understand this evening you're going to talk about either a Positive Declaration or a Negative Declaration, of the subdivision application of Gazza and Lettier of East Marion. I would call upon the Board not to give it a Positive Declaration for the following reason. The purpose of working with the Board over the last several years has been to create a subdivision that does not have the environmental and important problems that have to be addressed. We want to create a suhdivision that works. That works for the developer and that works for the Town, the Town Trustees and the Department of Environmental Conservation. t For this reason, if you would suspend so to speak, the process under SEQRA until such time as we could satisfy the concerns which I'm sure you have raised, so that a Negative Declaration could be issued in connection with this subdivision. We don't want a Positive, we want a Negative, and we want to satisfy your concerns and the concerns of the other agencies involved, by working the problems out beforehand. I've noticed at another Planning Board hearing where you were able to work with the developer on another waterfront parcel to get the prohlems resolved, to get the proper setbacks and the water supply taken care of and those environmentally sensitive lands possible turned over to, in this instance it was the Peconic Land Trust. You may remember the subdivision, it was the old oyster farm application? Southold Town Planninepard 8 J49 12, 1993 lie want to follow those footsteps. We want to work with the Town to correct problems that may exist so that a Positive Declaration would not be necessary in connection with these minor subdivision applications. I call upon the Board to give consideration to that, please. Mr. Ward: Any comments from the Board? Mr. McDonald: I really know where you're coming from, because obviously you're trying to do something there that's going to work. Our problem is you're a Type I action and if we, at this point if we go ahead with you and enter into discussions about how to change this to make it more environmentally sensitive, would be a violation of the law. It says that because you're a Type 1 we either have to give you a Negative Declaration and say that these don't have a significant impact. Or issue a Positive Declaration and have an impact statement. We can't negotiate with you about this. The law doesn't let us. The only alternative you have at this point is to withdraw your applications. Mr. Gazza: Well, T'd like to refer to Section 617.2H of SEQRA, discusses conditional Negative Declaration. Mr. McDonald: Tt's not allowed in a Type 1 action. Only allowed in an unlisted action and you're a Type 1 action. Mr. Gazza: Our subdivision was elevated to Type 1 . It started as an unlisted. If we go back to the original application date of prior years, maybe we come under the same regulations that the subdivision of the old oyster farm came under when they were able to escape the. . . Mr. McDonald: They were Type 1 and they came in with an application that mitigated everything in the beginning. We didn't enter into negotiations with them. They came in with an application that had mitigated all the problems up front. So, we didn't get into like you do this and we' ll do that kind of thing with them. Mr. Gazza: Possibly, if the Board would give a list of the problems that need to be mitigated, and maybe a two week adjournment so that we could address those issues. Maybe most of the issues have been resolved. We certainly tried to work over the last 4--1/2 years with the Board in creating a subdivision that benefits everyone. We're notlhere to upset the regulations, we're here to work within them. But to give it a Positive Declaration and to cause us an additional 10 to 15,000 dollars in immediate expenses, T think it's uncalled for in the nature of this subdivision. We' re trying to work with you; we want to address the concerns, tell us what the concerns are. We' ll work together on it. Mr. Ward: Well, obviously some of the concerns were raised already where your access problems in going over wetlands, certainly hasn't been mitigated at this point. Mr. Gazza: At the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, it was discussed that if we proceeded with this next step and paid the environmental review fees, that the Board would have the leverage to talk to the adjacent subdivision owner, Cove Beach Estates property, about bringing some coordinated access. Southold Town Planninepard 9 JO 12, 1993 Has the Board made any progress with that since out last meeting. Mr. Ward: No. Mr. Gazza: That was an important element of our last meeting which I thought something was going to happen on in the interim. Not yet. Mr. Ward: Well, the only thing that I can see is that if you would like to take a try at addressing the issues at this point and submitting that in writing to us so we could at ].east let our environmental consultant look at it. Mr. Gazza: Have the issues been put forth in some type of a report? Mr. Ward: Well, you're fully aware of the issues. Your primary one is an access and how do you. . . Mr. McDonald: But to send it back to the consultant is cleatly going to he an act. . .I would ask the attorney, but from what we had in the past it would be probably illegal. This is a Type 1 action. If it was unlisted we could go ahead with this pretty simply. The only alternative I see is to withdraw the applications, amend them and re--submit them. Mr. Gazza: We're not prepared to withdraw. We have sutxnitted over four years ago at the time when it was unlisted, and I would discuss that with counsel for the Board, about the status today for a SEQRA review and a Positive Declaration. I was hoping that the Board might have some type of a report on the forms which we did submit on the environmental review that we could bring back and address in writing, and possibly a couple of week adjournment to do that before a decision would be made. Mr. Ward: Well, the Positive Declaration, the whole purpose of it is to ferret out all of the particular problems or conditions of a particular subdivision, so to do something in between is difficult. Our advice has been with the Type 1 action that we can't do that. Mr. McDonald: If you want us to adjourn for us to ask counsel, we can ask counsel their opinion. Mr. Ward: Not take action tonight, and we'll put it back on for next calendar, if in fact we have to go (inaudible) . t Mr. Gazza: OK. Mr. McDonald: Have we entered into any kind of time frame on this? Ms. Scopaz: Yes, does the Board have any objection to giving him copies of the consultants report? Board: No Mr. McDonald: Absolutely not. No problem. It's public record. (Everyone talking) . There's some question about whether we have legal ti.me frames in this in the SEQRA. Southold Town Planningeard 10 12, 1993 So, what I'm going to ask you is very simply, is are you prepared to waive your rights under the time frames, so we can continue this over to another meeting? Mr. Gazza: For the time period necessary until the next meeting, absolutely. Mr. McDonald: Good. Mr. Gazza: Thank you. SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Mr. Ward: Suffolk County National BanY, -- This proposed sitep r is for a canopy and tomated teller machine at the drive up window o, this bank, on Rt.25 in Matt tuck. SCTM# 1000--143--3--4.2. What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. airman, I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board, acti under the State Environmental Quality Review Act establishes itself as ead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non--significance and rants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Orlowski : Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Al in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlows'ci, l Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carri. Mr. McDonald: I'd like to mak a further tion that WHEREAS, the Suffolk County ational Bank is e owner of the property known and designated as Th Suffolk County Nati al Bank, SCTM# 1.000-- 141-3-4.2 located on Ra yte 25, Mattituc'c; and t WHEREAS, a formal ap iication for the approval of th site plan was submitted on June 1 1993; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to th State Environmental uality Review Act, (Article B) , Park 617, de ared itself lead agency d issued a Negative Declaration on July 12, 19 and WHEREAS, is site plan was certified by Curtis Horton, Senior B ilding Inspect on July 7, 1993; and WHER . S, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Tow of So hold have been met; and now therefore be it Southold Town Planni*Board 32 ICY 12, 1993 Mr. Ward: OK, we're back to hearings held over from previous meetings. We certainly stayed out of order pretty good tonight. Item one is Harold Reese, Sr. , et al and Otto Uhl, Jr. , et al -- This lot line change between Harold Reese Sr. , et al and Otto Uhl, Jr. , et al is to convey 10,093 square feet from Harold Reese, Sr. to Otto Uhl, Jr. and to convey 5,258 square foot from Otto Uhl, Jr. to Harold Reese, Sr. After the lot line change, the Harold Reese, Sr. parcel will be 98.1563 acres and the Otto Uhl, Jr. parcel will be 12.4051 acres. SCTMtk 1000--22--3--15.7., 18. 1 & 18.3. Ben Kinzler: The original preliminary plat plan approval contains a couple of things. Number one was the exchange of two parcels so as to square off one parcel on the proposed Cove Beach subdivision and to add to the Uhl--Russell piece a larger piece. Obviously a (inaudible) benefit to them in the exchange, and the reason of course being the ability to square off that one corner parcel. I understand there was some issue with the County Planning Board. Has there been a definition as to what the problem is, if any? Mr. McDonald: We're about to resolve those problems. Mr. Ward: We're writing letters bac'c and forth, there's a communication gap. They've asked whether we're creating new lots, and we're not. They were asking for numbers on lots, which aren't lots, so I think at this point we're ready to proceed with it. Did you have anything else to add? Mr. Kinzler: If the Board has any questions? Mr. Ward: Any questions from the Board? Mr. McDonald: Or anyone else? Joseph Gazza: The neighboring property. i was wondering if the Board had the opportunity to question the access. There was a discussion at our last meeting about the coordination of the two access roads, Cove Beach Estates and the Gazza--Lettieri subdivision. It seemed like an opportune time. Mr. Ward: Well, this is not a particular time that the subdivision is before us. This happens to be a lot line change of trading two pieces of parcels to even out a piece, that's all. 1 Mr. Gazza: Will the access road serve those lots that will be created by rearrangement? Mr. McDonald: They'll be no change in the parcels. There's a parcel now, there will be a parcel later. The other parcel is existing and accessed elsewhere. So, there is no change in the parcel. (everyone talking) Mr. Kinzler: As the roads are already laid out. . .I became aware of the issue just this evening. It's always unfortunate when you have a neighbor and you have to wind up meeting him here. But if there was an issue certainly we would have been delighted to consider in the inception stage and here we are coming down to the back end, and very frankly, I don't know how it is at this point in time we would go about cutting through what appears to me, the only way to come through would be to cut through Southold Town Planni*Board 33 Oly 12, 1993 existing proposed plots. Mr. McDonald: That's not what he's proposing at all. It will have to be addressed in the SEQR process and the final approval for this subdivision, the major subdivision of which this is trying to facilitate has not been done, it remains open. Mr. Gazza: I just thought that this might be an excellent opportunity since the land owners are both before you on happen chance on subdivisions -- mine has been pending for five years and. . . Mr. McDonald: You had indicated to us you had talked to them. . . Mr. Gazza: Numerous occasions. Mr. McDonald: . . .and they had given you answers. Mr. Reese(?) : The only discussion I had with Mr. Gazza was certainly in regard to once our application was approved, there might be some discussion between his subdivision, but I wanted Cove Beach approved first. Mr. McDonald: That's exactly what he relayed to us. Mr. Reese: Yes, so I want Cove Beach approved, and then if he wants we can get together somehow, and with the Board's consent, fine, but I want it approved first. Mr. Gazza: And the Board ].ed Mr. Lettieri and I to believe at our last meeting that upon payment of the environmental review fees that the Board would look into the further possibility because of the SEQR process of coordinating a common access in the interest of proper planning. Mr. McDonald: We said that in the SEQR process we would examine the possi- bilities, those legal possibilities, which exist. And that's what we're re- quired by law to do and that's what we will do, exactly. Mr. Gazza: We're gentlemen appearing before you, is there any enlightenment that you could give on these two applications? I know they' both been pending for a long time. Mr. McDonald: You want us to give you the answers to the iprocess without engaging in the process. That I can't do. You had discussions with him already, right? And he has just given you the same response now that you said he gave previously. If we get into the process, we'll see what the process brings forward. There are legal considerations that undoubtedly our lawyers, their lawyers and everybody is going to talk about. We can't resolve this here. You've asked him and he's responded here to you again, about it. It's not really pertinent in my mind to the application before us at this moment, which is a lot line change which is a little tiny piece of their other project, which is not getting a final approval tonight. It's simply a lot line change which we would like to move ahead on. I understand your frustration in this, but I don't see the connection. Southold Town Planno Board 34 ICY 12, 1993 Mr. Gazza: Well since you have the adjacent property owners before you. . . Mr. McDonald: That's why I brought up the fact that you've had this discuss- ion with them already. If the two of you could go out in the hall and sit down and talk and solve it, God bless you. Mr. Kinzler: I think maybe the question you're asking is, what does the Board see as the further process. Mr. McDonald: We haven't made even a determination on Mr. Gazza's SEQR, because he's asked us to hold it in abeyance while he provides other inform- ation. There's not even a SEQR determination. Mr. Kinzler: So we're at different stages of the process. Mr. McDonald: Yes, you're a quite different stages. Mr. Gazza: But the common point is the access. I've read the SEQR reports and the reports focus as the Chairman focused, on the opening of my conver- sation this evening before the Board, on coordinated proper access. Now, my . neighbor says. there is going to be no discussion until he completes the sub- division. Now if he completes the subdivision. . . Mr. McDonald: You want to get the answer to the process without being in- volved in the process. You don' t leap frog over. You need to enter into your part of the process. Then we're going to get involved and undoubtedly there are going to be discussion, legal discussions about this with our attorney about what can and can't be done. Mr. Kinzler: I think the perception is not completely accurate. I think what my client has said and is intending to say is very simply this, look, the cost of this thing is enormous. We're anxious to get going with the thing as you know. To the extent that the Board comes to us or the Town Attorneys come to us in the final process and in conjunction with the approvals and says listen will you do us a favor, could you do this instead of doing that? I think we've evidenced an ongoing desire to be flexible, to the extent that it requires a side--tracking and a further delay in the process is not something we can afford to do. You want us to be reasonable? We're more than prepared to be reasonable. Mr. Gazza: I'm trying to be reasonable and I think that if we pool our efforts we can get two maps approved at the same time. Mr. Kinzler: I don't think, in all fairness, it deserves the belaboring of the Board, before whom it does not appear to be an issue. Mr. Gazza: I've been before the Board for five years, as you've been maybe longer and I was led to believe that the access issue was the major part of holding up my subdivision application and it may become, a stumbling blocs; on yours. Mr. McDonald: What we were trying to impress upon you at the last meeting is the same thing -- T haven't been here that long but every time someone's tried to impress on you -- the sooner you get in the process, the sooner you get the answers. Southold Town Planning Board 35 July 12, 1993 Five years ago, and unfortunately this thing has totally (inaudible) up, but the sooner you get in, the sooner we get the answers. If we continue to sit outside of it, the answers will never come, because until you make an application, you never get an answer. If you can't get an answer to the process without getting into the process. You can't do it. Mr. Orlowski: I've been here 14 years and I've never had one applicant give access to another applicant and it's never happened. I don't even know if it's going to happen now. Mr. Gazza: Well, then we might as well build a bridge and scrap the whole idea of coordinated access and the Board should have told Mr. Lettieri and I that at the last meeting and. . .why side track us? Mr. McDonald: The answers aren't there until you ask the questions and we go around and go through the process. You think that we can sit down and make all the decisions without entering in. . .the public has something to say about it, the neighbors have . . . (change tape) . I would ask that we move ahead on this. I would like to move ahead on this particular application. Mr. Ward: What's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. McDonald: I'd like to make a further motion that WHEREAS, Harold Reese, Sr. , et al is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM# 1000--22--3--1.5.1 & 1.8.3 and Otto Uhl, Jr. , et al is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM# 1000--22--3--1.8. 1; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8) , Part 617, declared itself lead agency and issued a Negative Declaration on May 24, 1993; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval to the surveys dated May 28, 1993 and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys subject to fulfillment of the following condition within six (6) months of the Fate of this resolution: 1 • Submission of the executed deed for each parcel. Mr. Ward: Is there a second? Southold Town Planni0Board 36 �ly 12, 1993 Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Kinzler: I think we already submitted copies of the executed deed? We did not intend to file it until the final subdivision was approved. Is that acceptable to the Board? Mr. Ward: Say that again? Mr. Kinzler: We did not intend to actually swap property until the final sub- division approval is granted. Mr. Ward: Do it with the final map? Mr. Kinzler: Yes. (inaudible) Thank you. Mr. Ward: Hillcrest Estates -- Section 2. -- This major subdivision is for 20 lots on 2.2.9 acres located in Orient. SCPM#k 1000--13--2--8.5. I guess the question is, where are you at? Mr. Kinzler: .We had a meeting a number of months ago with members of the Suffolk County t. of Health. The issue is obviously water quality. And very frankly, whil we applied for a variance fromthe and and were denied, we believed \back elieve that we would an appropriate redress in the court 've done in an eff to avoid that is to meet with the Board ntatives of the ealth Dept. in an effort to achieve a compromise to work ou ome solution. At their suggestion we had gohad ret edthe existing wells and had found that with someis th e had been changes in water quality, that there's been a dissipation m the water table of some of the contaminants that previously e st but that in other locations they still exist. As a result of the ini 'a1 retesting we' decided to drop new wells and to see what water quali is in other parts o the proposed parcel. We're hopeful, and unfor nately the driller is una e to move with the same speed (inaudible) , with respect to the testing, nd not only the testing but also with r spect to the dropping of a well the water for the pumps for the fire partment. We hope to get that accom ished real quickly. Unfortunate he's not moving as quickly as we would _ 'ke and unfortunately we have no control over it. And we hope to get that don shortly to go back to the Board of Health and to hopefully accomplish some kind of a reasonable compromise in terms of the subdivision. What we contemplate the possibility of doing is combining in some cases, lots. In four or five cases we may take two lots and combine them into one lot for purposes of complying and perhaps averaging out, if you will, the respective water quality. /�,/✓���uYYt�t:r��� [7 P y PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �a S, r� SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennet[ Orlowski, Jr., Chairman . Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward y Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 July 13 , 1993 Joseph F. Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Proposed minor subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond: Joseph F. Gazza ( 1) Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph F. Gazza ( 2) SCTM# 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: The Planning Board at its July 12, 1993 meeting decided to reserve decision on the environmental determination for the above noted subdivisions until the next meeting on August 9, 1993 in order to obtain the advice of the Town' s legal counsel regarding your inquiry. In order to answer your inquiry, the Board will not be able to act on your determination within the thirty day time frame set forth in the Environmental Quality Review Act. At last night's meeting, you agreed to waive your right to pursue action against this Board with regard to delaying of the determination only until August 9, 1993. Sincerely, ' '' 0'/"V_ h, l4/c »t5 Richard G. Ward Chairman CC: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Matthew Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATC. Environmental & Planning Cons ' 54 N. Country Road Suite 2 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 DATE JOB NO. (516) 331.1455 June 29 1993 ATTENTION TO _ T4wn._.of Southold _._._ _.,_„ ___ ___ Richard Ward ChairmanPlanning RE' P,O.._Box 1179 Dam Pond @ E. Marion Southold, NY 11971_ WE ARE SENDING YOU Y Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: > ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ® Report COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 ea 6/24/93 Review of 5 subdivision projects: Joseph F. Gazza Grundbesitzer Corp. Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph F. Gazza 1 6/25/93 1337 Invoice THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval i Qt For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution C$As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: k6wcanles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICD__ ROWCTM cmc,G,lnn,Mm Owl TO Orte PHONE TOLL FREE 1 eoo-n M If enclosures are not as noted,kindly nobly us at once. /lam CRAMER, V SOCIATES MS ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 05 June 24, 1993 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 d j - --------- Re: Review of EAF for Minor Subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond E t JUN 3 01993 Bernice Lettieri SCTM No. 1000-22-3-20 L_-e-U..OL su ifHULD iOWN PLtNPJINI T kD Dear Mr. Ward: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of 4 acres and is located northwest of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 186.35 feet east of a point 1,414.51 feet north of Main Road at a point 1,950 east of Stars Road, East Marion. The proposed subdivision involves dividing the 4 acre parcel into two (2) lots. Lot sizes are both 87,000 square feet. Each lot has frontage on an access road which bisects the site and runs from the Joseph Frederick Gazza piece on the west to the Joseph Frederick Gazza piece to the east. The site is zoned "A-80"requiring lots a minimum of 80,000 square feet in size. The subject parcel is comprised of relatively flat topography with slopes generally less than 10 percent. The majority of the site has Plymouth loamy sand,with a small area of Carver Plymouth sand on the south side of the parcel. Subsoils are characterized as sand with no impediment to leaching capability. The elevation of water beneath the site is 1-2 feet indicating that the depth to water averages less than 10 feet on Lot 1 and 10-12 feet on Lot 2. The site was utilized for agricultural purposes in the past; however, at present the uplandportions of the site are characteristic of an abandoned field. Typical pioneer species have overgrown the site including herbaceous weeds, black cherry, honeylocust, red cedar and oak species. In addition, the site contains a transition of typical field species as well as dune oriented vegetation including bayberry. The site Page I of 4 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Bernice Lettieri Long EAF Review is utilized by field oriented bird and mammal species, as well as shorebirds. The site has significant wildlife potential due to the inactivity on the parcel and the nesting and foraging opportunities. A species of warbler was observed further supporting the isolated nature of this Parcel. The site provides an important link between the tidal wetlands habitat associated with Dam Pond, and the fresh and tidal wetlands present on the open spaceportion of the Cove Beach Estates site to the north. A portion of the site corresponding to the south part of Lot 1 includes Intertidal Marsh. Groundsel is a common transitional species between the wetlands and upland areas. These areas have been delineated and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Town Trustees and the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The site is not within the North Fork Water Budget Area, and no community or public water supply is available. Therefore, the site will have to rely on private water supply. The area including the subject site does not appear to be affected by farming activities as the North Fork Water Supply Plan does not identify the area groundwater as having nitrate concentrations in excess of 8 mg/l and aldicarb concentrations in excess of 7 ug/1. The potential for on-site wells as water supply may be affected by chloride concentrations as a result of underlying salty groundwater. The subject use will need to ensure that adequate water supply can be provided. Application for a realty subdivision must be filed with Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). The site is bordered on the north by Presently vacant forested lands of the Cove Beach Estates subdivision. The portion of Cove Beach Estates bordering the site is proposed as an open space area and provides important upland and wetland habitat in the area. To the west and east the site borders two currently pending subdivisions, both under the name of Joseph Frederick Gazza, and pending subdivision review by the Town Planning Board. To the south is an extension of Dam Pond. The subject project is one of five (5) projects pending in the area, and gains access from the abutting lot to the west, and provides access to the two additional applications to the east. The proposed project in itself will result in the loss of open space and field habitat, and could potentially impact significant tidal wetlands on the south part of Lot 1. Proposed Lot 1 may have constraints with regard to sanitary system installation due to a depth to groundwater of less than 10 feet. The design and configuration of this parcel is particularly important due to the open space lands involved in the Cove Beach Estates property to the north and the sensitive nature of Dam Pond and its associated wetlands to the south. Proper environmental planning encourages expansion of open space continuum by aligning contiguous open space between land use pro osals. The access road will induce growth in the area by providing ingress/pegress for the aforementioned projects. These impacts are significant on their own; and when considered in the context of the four (4) additional pending projects, the subject application is expected to have a significanti act on the environment. The SEQR Regulations contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.15 for Generic Environmental Impact Statements indicate that, "...a generic EIS may be used to assess the environmental effects of: CRAMER, VC RAOCIATES ENVIRONMENTG CONSULTANTS Page 2of4 0 Bernice I.ettieri Long EAF Review (1) a number of separate actions in a given geographical area which,if considered singly may have minor effects,but if considered together may have significant effects;or (2) a sequence of actions,contemplated by a single agency or individual;or (3) separate actions having generic or common impacts;or (4) an entire program or plan having wide application restricting the rang of future alternative policies or projects. The proposed action together with the four (4) additional subdivisions in the area will most certainly have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: (1) The action(s)will result in significant loss of open space in a Town and County designated Critical Environmental Area which contains unique habitat and resources associated with Dam Pond. (2) The action(s)will result in impairment of the viability of unique habitat areas including overgrown field,tidal wetlands,dunelands and fust growth woods. The diversity of habitats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significant ecological impact. (3) The action(s) may cause impact to the surface waters of Dam Pond in the form of erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff,and nitrogen load. Groundwater is shallow beneath the site and may result in impacts from sanitary system installation. In addition the actions will require water supply and use in an area of limited water supply potential. (4) The action should be considered in a context which will seek to maximize open space retention in a sensitive Critical Environmental Area through coordination of contiguous open space with adjoining parcels including Cove Beach Estates and four(4) additional currently pending subdivisions noted herein. (5) The action(s)will cause potential visual impacts. (6) The action(s) require common access and will share some utilities and impacts. The viability of the access from the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcel has been questioned by the Town Trustees as this access may require a road crossing over Trustees land--an action which the Trustees have indicated they are not inclined to permit. Access to the subject Bernice Lettieri piece as proposed requires this wetlands road crossing. (7) An environmental impact statement would permit the proper consideration of generic impacts associated with the combination of the five(5)projects,and allow for reasonable mitigation measures and alternatives to be explored. Based upon the above reasons, it is evident that the proposed project must be reviewed in detail as to the environmental impacts of the action. This review must consider the project in the context of other pending applications as at least two (2) of the above noted reasons for requiring a Generic EIS are applicable; namely: separate actions in a given geographic area which when considered together will have a significant effect; and, separate actions having generic or common impacts. The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires that a Determination of Significance be issued for a project involving a decision by a Planning Board. In the case of the Bernice Lettieri project, it is recommended that a Positive Declaration be issued. Said Positive Declaration should make note of site specific as well as generic impacts and should form the basis for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement in connection with individual review of other pending projects. CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 3of4 Bernice Lettieri Long EAF Review If you are in agreement, I have enclosed a Positive Declaration for your use. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, z I lorz arles J. VoKrhis,CEP,AICD CRAMER, VR OCIATES Page 4oY4 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: June 24, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The 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. Title of Action: Minor Subdivision Bernice Lettieri East Marion, New York SEQR Status: Type I Action Project Description: Theproject which is the subject of this Determination, involves a subdivision of 4 acres into two (2) lots. The project site is in a Critical Environmental Area and contains wetlands associated with Dam Pond. Four additional subdivision projects are pending in the same geographic area and will involve common and potentially significant impacts. SCTM Number: 1000-22-3-20 Location: The site consists of 4 acres and is located northwest of an extension of Dam Pond beginning at a point 186.35 feet east of a point 1,414.51 feet north of Main Road at a point 1,950 east of Stars Road, East Marion. Pagel of 3 0 Bernice Lettieri SEQR Determination Comments: The Planning Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: Minor Subdivision of Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-31-5-1.2 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-21 Minor Subdivision of Grundbesitzer Corp. &Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: (1) The project has been evaluated through a Long EAF Part III which discusses in detail environmental and planning aspects of the project. (2) The action(s)will result in significant loss of open space in a Town and County designated Critical Environmental Area which contains unique habitat and resources associated with Dam Pond. (3) The action(s)will result in impairment of the viability of unique habitat areas including overgrown field, tidal wetlands, duneland s and first growth woods. The diversity of habitats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significant ecological impact. (4) The action(s) may cause impact to the surface waters of Dam Pond in the form of erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff, and nitrogen load. Groundwater is shallow beneath the site and may result in impacts from sanitary system installation. In addition the actions will require water supply and use in an area of limited water supply potential. (5) The action should be considered in a context which will seek to maximize open space retention in a sensitive Critical Environmental Area through coordination of contiguous open space with adjoining parcels including Cove Beach Estates and four (4) additional currently pending subdivisions noted herein. (6) The actions) will cause potential visual impacts. 7 The action(s) require common access and will share some utilities and impacts. The viability of the access from the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcel has been questioned by the Town Trustees as this access may require a road crossing over Trustees land -- an action which the Trustees have indicated they are not inclined to permit. Access to the subject Bernice Lettieri piece as proposed requires this wetlands road crossing. (8) An environmental impact statement would permit the proper consideration of generic impacts associated with the combination of the five (5) projects, and allow for reasonable mitigation measures and alternatives to be explored. For Further Information: Contact Person: Richard Ward, Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Page 2 of 3 Bernice Lettieri SEQR Determination Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone No.: (516) 765-1801 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Planning Commission NYS Dept. Transportation, John A. Falotico, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788 NYS Dept. of State, Mohabir Persaud, 162 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12231-0001 Applicant Page 3 of 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation _ Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 (516) 751-1389 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner September 20, 1991 Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. P. 0. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, N.Y. 11959 RE: DEC Application 1110-87-1200 Dam Pond Subdivision, East Marion, Southold Dear Mr. Gazza: I am writing to update you on the status of the referenced application for a Tidal Wetlands permit to subdivide a 36 acre parcel on Dam Pond into 12 lots and construct an access road. To date, the site has been visited several times by Department staff for inspection and wetland boundary delineation. The issues of concern have been the proposed access road and the location/configuration of the building envelopes on several of the lots. My letter to you dated July 17, 1990, discussed the Department 's concerns about the roadway and several of the proposed lots. In response you sub- mitted detail drawings of the roadway and additional prints of the subdivision map updated with our field flagged tidal wetland boundary and the designations of the areas in question from the Tidal Wetlands Map. Our review of these items indicates that the roadway and building envelope issues are still unresolved. Roadway The detail drawings indicate that the section of roadway crossing the wetland area will be at least 40 feet wide. As stated in my July 17, 1990, letter, the Department objects to the construction of a 40 foot wide roadway across the wetlands because of the filling and wetland destruction involved. Also, we felt that a 40 foot wide roadway is not necessary to access a maximum of only nine homes. We have changed our position on the roadway to a hierarchy of alternatives based on the expected adverse impacts to tidal wetlands : (A) Gain access to the area of the subdivision north of the wetlands by using the proposed street on the adjacent property to the west, Cove Beach Associates. This road appears to run north, past the landward end of the tidal wetland area to a point where a roadway could be constructed eastward across lot 111 of the Grundbesitzer Corps west parcel to join the current alignment. This arrangement: will require the negotiation of an easement with the adjacent property owner, but seems to be the most efficient as well as the most environmentally sound solution. Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. September 20, 1991 Page 2 A 11f ir1 � f (B) If alternative (A) proves impossible, construct a bridge to carry the current alignment of the proposed access road across the wetlands. The length of the proposed bridge does not appear to be excessive, and the only disturbance of wetland necessary would be for footings. (C) A very narrow, maximum width 20 feet, roadway surfaced with gravel through the wetland area. This roadway would have to be proposed in a manner that absolutely minimizes the amount of wetland area destroyed. The proposed 20 foot wide gravel roadway with 10 foot bulkheaded shoulders is not acceptable. To proceed, please submit a written statementevaluatingalternatives A - C above and the currently proposed 40' foot wide roadway. The statement should explain, in as much detail as necessary, the feasibility of each of the four alternatives from an environmental, economic, practical (construction techniques, etc.) and legal (will all involved agencies ' regulations allow the alternative?) standpoint. Please provide written documentation of any claims made. This evaluation of alternatives will lead to a chosen alternative. If the chosen alternative requires damage to the tidal wetlands (if alternative B - C, or the original are chosen) , the written statement must include an additional section acknowledging the fact that the alternative includes activities (filling, construction of bulkhead'ing, driving piles or footings) which are listed as presumptively incompatible with the preservation and ,protection of tidal wetlands and their values in 6NYCRR Part 661 .5 (Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations) . This section must demonstrate that the alternative chosen either: ( 1) Will not have an adverse impact on tidal wetlands and demonstrate how; or (2) The need for the project is so great that it overcomes the presumption of incompatibility assigned the activity in the regulations. If not already included in the alternative discussion, this is the section to elaborate on any requirements of other involved agencies which conflict with DEC's and to describe any mitigation measures proposed. Building Envelopes Please refer to the print of the subdivision map sent with my July 17, 1990, letter. This map indicates the locations of the required stakes A - CC for the field inspection. The July 17, 1990, letter includes a list of stakes which were found not to meet the 75 foot setback requirement of Part 661 .6. The latest subdivision map (received August 17, 1990) has not been updated to show all building envelopes a minimum of 75 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Please see page 2 of the July 17, 1990, letter which lists each stake found to be less than 75 feet from the tidal wetland boundary. As can be seen from the marked print of the subdivision map, there are four lots which contain building envelopes which do not meet setbacks. Please relocate the building envelopes on these lots to meet the required 75 foot minimum setback. As the lots are all relatively large, it should be a fairly simple matter to redesign the envelopes to comply. .�u6Gr�C-S Cs JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE L QuoGuE, NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Pending minor subdivision application at Dam Pond , East Marion Section #1000-022-03-019 , 020, 021 , 022 and 031-05-1 . 2 Dear Board Members , The above referenced minor subdivision application has been pending with your board since July 16th, 1985 . During the course of your 6 3/4 years review of these applications the major obstacle to obtaining approval of the division as been access . It is obvious to any reviewer of the above referenced that the proposed subdivision and road system of the adjacent tract of land "Cove Beach Estates" should be coordinated with our subdivision. Your board has failed to even attempt to coordinate the road systems of adjacent subdivi- sions . The undersigned has , since 12-6-1981 ,requested in writing to your board eleven ( 11 ) times to provide for a common road system rather than two roads running parallel with others over 1200 feet . The NYS DEC had on 9-20-1991 outlined by letter (copy attached) that the roadway as proposed independently on our subdivisions could be expected to adversely impact tidal wetlands and recommended that access to our property be by using the proposed street or the adja- cent property to the west , Cove Beach Estates . The DEC continued in q A that the Cove Beach Road would be the most efficient as well as the most environmentally sound solution. The Southold Town Trustees have informed your board on 1-21-92 that they are not in favor of our proposed road system in the area where it crosses the wetland area and further that this wetland area may in fact be trustee land and not available for road access . It is apparent to the undersigned that your board is oblivious to my eleven requests and the requests of the NYS DEC and Southold Town Trustees, which all uniformly agree that a coordinated road system be designed to promote proper planning and safeguard environ- mentally fragile areas . Your board ' s failure to provide even a "spur" to allow interconnection of adjacent subdivision and road systems between Cove Beach Estates and our lands amounts to poor planning . I respectfully request that your board reconsider the access issues set forth above prior to your granting final approval to the Cove Beach Estates subdivision map and road access system. I am available to meet with your board to discuss this issue at your convenience . Surveys depicting coordinated road systems have been previously submitted by the undersigned to your board. Please advise, cc : Andrew and Bernice Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers , New York Joseph G zza 1� encl . via : Certified Mail RRR New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 (516) 751-7900 s Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner July 3, 1989 Joseph F. Gazza, Esq. P. 0. Box 969 3 Ogden La. Quogue, N.Y. 11959 Re: 10-87-1200 Dam Pond Subdivision Dear Mr. Gazza: I am writing to update you on the status of the referenced project. We appreciate the fact that the application has been pending for some time and are making every effort to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion. As we have recently discussed, the additional information provided in your January 17th letter has answered our questions abocgt the Stage 1 Archaeological Survey. The survey is adequate. No further cultural resources information is necessary. To proceed with our review of the project for a tidal wetlands permit, we must confirm the building envelope setbacks from the tidal wetlands edge. Please have the building envelopes staked as shown on the attached plan. As usual, the stakes should be labeled, this time with the appropriate letter as shown on the enclosed copy of the staking requirement plan. Please also provide information on the' proposed access road. Will the road be widened or paved? In the vicinity of the wetland crossing, we will. require that the road be surfaced with crushed stone or other pervious material. As previously stated; if improvements to the access road are proposed, please submit 3 copies of site plan and cross sectional views of the work. Please contact me when the building envelope stakes are set and you have decided what will be done with the access road. We will then re-inspect the site and proceed with our review. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, George W. Hammarth GWlI:rw Senior Environmental Analyst attachment cc: file JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA /)1 ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.Box 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE,NEW YORK 119559 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) March 10, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Box 1179 Southold , New York 11971 Re: Five Minor Subdivision, situate at East Marion at Dam Pond Gazza and Lettieri Dear Mrs . Valerie Scopaz, The Lettieri ' s and I are truly frustrated with the ex- tensive review and review time that has elapsed over the past seven (7) years in connection with our simple minor subdivision request . The Lettieri ' s may believe that the delay is my fault howe ver , I have honestly been persistent to my best ability to get the various regulatory agencies to move forward with the applications . I am unable to convince Mr. Lettieri that a SEQRA review must be commenced for a third time on the application. He knows that the State Department of Environmental Conservation conducted their complete SEQRA review over a three ( 3) year period during the course of which your Board was repeatedly asked to join in for a coordinated review but never responded . I am perplexed how a Type I Action since November 24, 1987 could be reviewed uncoordinately without a lead agency determination , by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and , your Board to date. Possibly you could explain to me why the Planning Board did not conduct a timely coordinated review with the State Department of Environmental Conservation for this Type I action. Very truly yours , Josepherick Gazza cc : Mr . and Mrs . Lettieri 1 1 1992 .U SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. September 20, 1991 Page 3 Please be certain to measure setbacks from the DEC flagged tidal wetland boundary shown on the survey. Please discuss our requirements with the other applicants. If you have questions, please call me at 751-1389. Upon receipt of: - An acceptably revised subdivision map showing all building envelopes a minimum of 75 feet from the DEC flagged tidal wetland boundary and the roadway realigned through the Cove Beach property to avoid tidal wetlands; or - Revised subdivison map with correct building envelopes and the current road alignment with an acceptable bridge over wetlands; and - The alternative discussion/presumptively incompatible project evaluation, we will be able to proceed. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Very truly yours, George W. Hammarth Senior Environmental Analyst GWH/rw cc: file 1416-2 (2187)-7c ( t� 617.21 SECA Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review f FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a ;•ri, or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer Frrr,r:•• ' ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also Understood that those who dcirrr significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in envannr.•.•••• analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns art,, - •; the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the deter, i process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project c•r .,. 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 idennfymq basic ect data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action it :•• .:,'.••s guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it n a t., - 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 wrrtrrr impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 ,Kf Part 2 tUpon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, a'nd`.2 zknd 3 if appropriate). and .i M1. . <•, information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reason.i r.c lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and. therefore have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there . ;t effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PARI + +•* - - ;,, i �,.,// therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' yet C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that mat '-•' ' - - .;ct on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. • A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions pS OLWJ4:E (STT/l W-0 PRO POIEO S066,✓i.r,o,J eF LA. o.r r, ruA rc Ar EAST MA,erC A. Name of Action /000 -011L-03.020 07/7X0 P0?VoV/tifi30"Aa _ Name of Lead Agency PNnt or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title �t G�� 91CP, 2 /cwcmay. it( Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of I'r •+"' "+ �_ ` �1� ,cur) Q r i Date �• _ J • PART 1—PROJECT INFOR*10N K i Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additiona!7 information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION PRDPO-r o 9,)6dtVJJ,tl>r of LANOS .rlruA•rfe A I A fr MARIo,,J LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address,Municipality and County) rdIS)O Ny.r RT 2j 1662 F: EIo nAs FAO �AIi N�AR,urJ �v� )CR Co Nvs NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE rzroER; r ( ) ADDRESS ATT0RNEY-1,T-LAW P. O, BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE CITY/PO EsGd _ Ew YOF2K 11959 STATE ZIP CODE (516)653-5766 NAME OF OWNER(If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE �'r—F-rJI(F 4)5•Tr/E:z; ( 1 ADDRESS �� CA IV.) K.,no CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE %'k a— ivy L✓ L16,k- yjys� DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 1 RC r,-fro S.n4 -�Div,4w+l of VA Cr 2 Rk nor,..Tut LST 1' 90,7* con 87 000 S Fr: 1 00ar fS IN R Cryo& ;LPWAV /VGVT& 4efr* IMS /s B�7N6 � SV.#S vft &*VV&7##V 6Gu:cy wINA. � �( 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 ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) 7' Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: -4— acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 4 acres -.3•7 acres Forested O acres O acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) O acres O acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) ye- acres acres Water Surface Area n acresO --�� acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) O acres O acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces O acres 3 Other (Indicate type) _ acres acres "- acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? SAvO do GRAVEL ,ASI a.•Soil dfainage: SWell drained IC'O % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site ❑Poorly drained • %e of 'sitV ," • .. b. If any agricultural land is involypd_how many acres Of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? Ii acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings On project site? ❑Yes ONO a. What is depth to bedrock? N R• 140frn feet) 2 1 S. Approximate percentage of prop project site with slopes: 00-1040 to % 010-15% Z % 015% or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes UNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to as site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Dyes ENO 8. What is the depth of the water table'oti2 twin feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? taxes ❑No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Ayes ONO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes WNo According to Azar Identify each species h'/E2 46M S&njr 60ar Ci - 71dI/2, 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Dyes ®No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Dyes J2No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes ONO 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Al, /4 a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name _ DAM Po•Jo b. Size (In acres) 30 ; 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ONO a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Byes ❑No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Byes ONO 18. Is the site located in an agricultural ldistrict certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Dyes 0 19. Is the site located in or substantialll ontiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? es ONO 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of 56lid or hazardous wastes? Dyes ®No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor O acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 4_ acres initially,- f._4 4 c, L y acres ultimately. C. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 75 i r /Xdacres. d. Length of project, in miles: A/ 1-7. (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N• �. /, f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N. f1. ; proposed A/- /a. g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour - 3 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of Housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple family Condominium Initially Q Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 20 height;6 6width; 60 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 53.61 ft R,p,W• F,4,NTAG6 3 2. How much natural materi i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed f• the site? U tons/4 ubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be re med? Dyes ONo INN/A W443 .0d4*W6Cf – a. If yes, for what intend_.: purpose is the site being reclaimed? Al 114 b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ONo RE Fziloll Mrmr W`0 7a� APPR.,90 RoAo C. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ❑No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? x12 tacrej. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 9 7. If multi-phased: months, (including demolition). a'..Jotal number of phases anticipated ' /t/. .4" (number). b'r Anticipated date of commenc2fi2 f phase 1 —%'�Zmonth t /`)qit e , (including demolition). hase _ month . e r. c. Approximate completion date of final p d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes ®No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Dyes IONo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction l 2 after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project O 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Dyes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ®Yes ONo Type _ SAAI,7ARY r g7C1ALiIryr�er. 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes ONo Explain FNnRF FRO SfF-r J'sir ffA,k puCL Ick: R'. , P>o T,�c 4 A7{.ti fav,7y 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? 1i9Yes ONo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Xes INNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month 043 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? s ❑No c. If yes, give name AW70 YA /y s] /;"'i.•.• 7 location /Yi4.TT_1 d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyes ONo e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Dyes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N.n. tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Al.n. years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes ZNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes BNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes BNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? @lyes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) FI_fctait Fit,N Lre�o 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 5gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day -AS.– , 3 0 gallons/day. Pka '0 w>fcc:. p 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ❑Yes 16No b00 6#440 7wrift C If Yes, explain 4 25. Approvals Required: ` Submittal • • �c Date City, Town, Village Board ❑Yes MNo City, Town, %14'ase Planning Board ®Yes ❑No (tA r�J.., ✓¢s,v'.�oN t 9 86 City, Town Zoning Board ❑Yes ®No ,C-t . County Health Department ISYes ❑No SAN,'>+say -r�3�N1•n,x✓ 1 98(0 Other Local Agencies (--]Yes ❑No Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ❑No State Agencies DSc N4.1' ®Yes ❑No Nys '• t'`�- PARA, r 9S7 Federal Agencies Dyes []No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning ec-ae decision? ayes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit Msubdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RZ rzJ pF'rr,AL 2 '"-` Z-W,PA/Gi 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 2 Lc A-r 2tn` 41ctl 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? (Liyt.r'O��TiaL S. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? !A MC CG Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? MYes ❑No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/. mile radius of proposed action? Rrzr,o I5"TrAL 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/ mile? ayes ❑No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? r7l. i".. 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes ®No 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ✓Wes ❑No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? laYes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes lffNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑Yes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. SEC f'p•10 6c' ✓''¢- a,v.:,"J ,moa raizrnREo Cry rqtA. k_ f3AYLtcJ z_r Ctiryi R rPL:,.�4,e. X41 A+ 2"'p 198' w.'tL E. Verification certify that the informati n provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Appllcant/Sponsor N 0rfrPN r`XRPD,rAlLk CA=Z/7 Date Signature Title If the action is in the Coast re and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessmedOSEp FREDER.fCK GAZZA co P• BOX "9' 5 OC,EN ANE 5 ff c)a. G.J<1 N �^ ! '�i Ocr c, QUOGUE, NEW YORK 11959 (516) 653-576x^ T Part 2—PRCr„ECT IMPACTS AND THEMAGNITUDE ` • Responsibility of Lead Agenc General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been 'reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. A,py large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. WPotential 3 Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND igated By 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the proje�tjIte? ct Change Examples that would apply to column 2 UNO 1 ,5 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 10`0 ❑ foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed ❑ []Yes ❑No 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ 3 feet. ❑Yes []No • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. ❑ ❑ • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑Yes ❑No E) El feet of existing ground surface. ❑Yes ❑No • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ ❑ than one phase or stage. ❑Yes ❑No • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ tons of natural material (i.e.' rock or soil) per year. ❑Yes ❑No • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ • Construction in a designated floodway. Dyes ❑No • Other impacts Cl Q ❑Yes ❑No [-]Yes ❑No 2. Will there be an effect h. ,.,,y u;;,que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)UNO DYES • Specific land forms: ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑No 6 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential ,Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change r (Under Articles 15,24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation La L) a ONOES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ F-1 Yes [:]No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Other impacts: nay &dA 4A& Wt3TUA" ❑ Dyes ❑No M-azzma" lthgms 1 Abn6l.lga 7I- 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO AES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Liquid effluent will be conveye.)off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000_gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No day. . • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ Dyes ❑No 6_ 42 &V ivi/od 7b /LLb 4gAo 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No 7 1` 2 .3 mall to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? SMO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑L ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑N hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ Dyes []No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? {$NO XES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ []Yes []No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ []Yes [-]No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: 61.77 >+_�/yj �ti/y -isz �� X ❑ Dyes ❑No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? �AJdO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or Cl ❑ migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ Cl of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important ❑Yes ❑No vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural •rand'resources? q;NO - '❑YE$ Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 8 . • � • 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 1:1 No land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? 19NO ES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. 1, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes El No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their r enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No screening of scen.4�views known to be important to the area. ` ' • Other impacts: �TiC�V7&*_ V15(li J**A try- 7y � (� ❑ ❑Yes []NoLO C4"L US&I" IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? I@NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 IIINO ?. S • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ Oyes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No 9 \ j y 2 , 3 IMPACT OARANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO DYES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 � • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? IINO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or,industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? - IZINO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No facility. • Odors will occur routine) (more than one hour per da V P V). ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local [] ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ Dyes [-]No noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes []No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El NO within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 10 • 2 3 -- IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing commoonn ty2 Impact Impact Project Change fSNO ^}AYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ✓✓✓ ��` • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ 13 Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ F-1 Yes ❑No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 14 14 11 (2187)-9c `�l 617.21 l SEOR Appendix B kt-,te Environmental QualitReview Visual EAF Addendum This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAF. (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-3 3.5 5+ • A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ® Cl ❑ to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? • State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 99❑ • The State Forest Preserve? 1J JA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? Nl.I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? Ntn • National Park Service lands? NIA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? NIA • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? WIA • A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? NlA • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • State? N4J 'Rr 2S- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ • Local road? ❑ 1% ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ®Yes ❑No 3. Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? ❑Yes ONo 1 .f t DESCRIPTION OF EXISWG VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Within *1/4 mile *1 mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ Forested ❑ Agricultural N/.a ❑ ❑ Suburban residential ❑ Industrial N/A ❑ ❑ Commercial A�/A ❑ ❑ Urban N//1 ❑ ❑ River, Lake, Pond Dt•M Pow a ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks ml ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ff ❑ ❑ Flat ® ❑ Hilly ❑ Mountainous Nil ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: *1/2 mile ❑Yes El No *1 miles ❑Yes ❑No '2 miles ❑Yes 11 No '3 miles ❑Yes EJ No ' Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is Mi J,r nl NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is FREQUENCY Holidays/ Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Involved in recreational activities ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents ® ❑ ❑ ❑ At a residence ❑ ❑ ❑ At worksite ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 • M SuP��CS. o� COLONIAL NORTH AMERICAN 17 Mercer Street HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07601 Telephone 201-343-5777 Fax 201-343-1934 May 26, 1993 Planning Board Office Re: Proposed Minor Subdivisions Town Hall, 53095 Main Road located at East Marion on P.O. Box 1179 Dam Pond: SC-1M# 1000-22-3-199 Southold, New York 11971 20, 219 22 and 31-5-1.2 Att: Richard G. Ward Dear Mr. Ward, This is our written authorization to have Mr. Joseph Frederick Gazza act on our behalf in this matter. Sincerely, Andrew Lettier Bernice Lettieri 4l AGENT FOR northArnerlcan GOVAN LINES , s PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS aSCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman D•: 'r1 Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 May .18, 1993 \ Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O.Box 969 3 Ogden Lane .Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond: Joseph Frederick Gazza Grundbesitzer Corp. and Andrew Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, "22 andl Dear Mr. Gazza: This is to acknowledge receipt of your check for $1,500. 00 as payment for the review of the long environmental assessment forms for the above-noted subdivision applications. Our environmental consultant is being notified to begin the review. In closing, 2 must remind you that we have not received written authorization for you to act on behalf of Andrew Lettieri and Bernice Lettieri, respectively. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward . Chairman 3 a PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ,•rr 4 SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward \' , ;,' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold. New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 May 18, 1993 Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond: Joseph Frederick Gazza Grundbesitzer Corp. and Andrew Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22 3-19, 20, 21, 22 and / 31 51TI'2 _:.. Dear Mr. Voorhis: In February 1992, this office referred to your firm, five long environmental assessment forms , maps and other relevant documentation pertinent to the environmental review of the above noted subdivision applications. . This is to acknowledge receipt of a check for $1 ,500. 00 from the applicants for the environmental review of same. Please proceed with the review. If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to call Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Ril��isDC�ard (/U s Chairman Enc. Referral letter of February 4, 1992 o�Og�FFO(�-Co o PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ti Z SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA_AT y. 50-546/214 orTHE 4162 Richard G. Ward i P.O. BOX 969, 5 OGDEN LANE AY TO Mark S. McDonald ODOGUE, NY 119,99 Kenneth L. Edwards PH. 516-653-5766 -r i3. 3 19` ;# YMolR oe or_��w Telephone (516) 765-1938 $ Iroo DOLLARS r 'tl�t:tllrYFol.K CotrI NAT1oNAr,nA1VK wu.,nu•nawW.. ,,.,,.row un e.w row.u..• Joseph Frederick _ P.O. Dox 969 3 Odqen Lane j I:U 1 "a 51.641: 32 001551 — Quogue, UY 119 9 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM#1000-22-3-19 � y Bernice Lettieri SCTM#1000-22-3-20 Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM#1000-22-3-21 .100,:1 Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri SCTM#1000-22-3-22 Andrew Lettieri SCTM#1000-31-5-1.2 ';Dear Mr. Gazza: This letter is in reference to the Board' s letter to you of April 9, 1992, (copy enclosed) , requesting the environmental t.1 ' review by its consultants. wrw Jm State Environmental Quality Review Act was started in g December 1991 and has not moved forward due to lack of payment {;cam of the environmental review fees. c; 45w car 41 W;y Please indicate in writing whether you wish to proceed or M 011J Q;WY close the file. If W W' ";i you decide to proceed, the review fee is o U.IY 4.'1 $300. 00 per application made out to the Town of Southold for the = UOO x V total amount of $1500.00. � da $� 4411 0 7�.93 � 0 0 Southold Town Planning Board 16 May 3, 1993 Mr. Latham: Second that motion. Mr. Ward: Seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlows'.ci, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: Local Law on Certificates of Determination. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that we send our comments to the Town Board. Mr. Latham: Second, again. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. OTHER Mr. Ward: _ _ _ _ _ ;'Appointment to discuss pending sub- division proposals. SCTTitk 1000--22--3-49, 20, 21 , 22 and 31--5--1.2. Welcome. Joseph Gazza: The Board may rememltier, I'm Joseph Gazza. This evening I have Mr. Andrew Lettieri, and his wife, Bernice Lettieri, in the orange sweater. We, the owners of this property, have ?peen before your Board several. times over several years; it probably goes back even longer than that. I brought along a overall map --,maybe I could refresh the Board's recollection of where we've been and maybe the Board can thereafter, give us an idea about where we're going. I don't know if everyone can see -- I'm cutting you off, but we have a series of parcels which are single and separately owned. This is the Andrew Lettieri parcel, this is the parcel of Gazza, this is the parcel. of Bernice Lettieri, this is the parcel of Gazza, and this is the parcel of Lettieri and Gazza, as partners. So, we have separate pieces, they are separate tax lots and they predate zoning in Southold as single and separate lots, with the ax-- ception of this overall parcel, which was the suhject of a prior Planning Board approval where we set off a lot and the remaining approximatley 14 acres was conditioned on no more than three lots, at that time. I 'm doing all your work Valerie. So, we have minor applications which have been before the Board for six or seven years? Mr. McDonald: Ten, fifteen. Ms. Scopaz: It was '-efore my time. Southold Toth Planning Board 17 May 3, 1993 Mr. Lettieri: 1983. Mr. Gazza: We've come_ quite a [rays with t'?e Ot',er agencies, for example the DEC has been involved with this project, and they 'lave done extensive wetland flagging, those are all tile numbers that appear, and you can see the different classifications of wetlands. The Suffol'c County Health Dept. !las reviewed this in connection with groundwater supply and grater quality, and soil quality. Some rather extensive wore-, was done in tiv- mid 80's pertaining to the avail- ability of potable water supply for the lots as proposed. A series of test wells were driven and analyzed to determine if the water quality was good and the engineer calculated that there was approximately four times the amount of water available on the site t'.lan tble site would us=_. But despite the eight or nine years of review and aloe of work that went into this we haven't received an approval on the map. Mr. L.^tti.eri keeps asking me, maybe I'm doing something wrong and I don't have t' e answer for hi-m. Maybe I am doing something wrong. T'.le purpose of this eveniilgs m'aet-ing was to as!, the Board where we're going on this subdivision. Mayh^ we're, loo'ring at it wrong. Maybe we should be loo'ri.ng a different direction. Maybe the Board can givL, us SOme imput, some guid•eance, so maybes we could 1�ring this to a conclusion. Mr. Lettieri '.las become 10 years older sinco we started, and I've lost alot of hair since we started. Mr. McDonald: You don't get any sympathy from me. Mr.Gazza: But maybe, with the Board's input we might maybe correct a pat'l. Maybe we've been going doom a wrong pati, may've ;•re need some advice from the Board. And that's why we're here tonight to 5ee if We might be able to call upon you for that. We put the map before you, I give you my pen. Give us an idea; show us where we're going wrong. Mr. Ward: Well, maybe I' ll call on Valerie just to give us a little baecground as to w'lere we're at and what we've given '-ac': to you on it. Ms. Scopaz: Well, basically Where this application is, we 'lave five separate applications before this Board and we 'lave not been able to proceed because we started the environmental review. Vie have not been able to proceed with the environmental review. We're doing five separate applications and the SEQRA was never concluded. The Planning Board's last letter went out in March of 1992 saying that ore need to make a determination of significance to complete t'-1e environmental review and that we were as'cing for payment of the environmental review fee of $300.00 for each application, for a total of $1500.00. Basically that's what we need. We need to proceed with the environmental. review. Tl= DEC and the Health Dept. so far as my understan'i.ng, will not proceed with their review of the application be-cause they don't have a SEQRA determination from the Town. And t'eat's basi.call.y where ore are. Mr. Ward: So that's our next step, or your next step. Mr. Gazza: Yeah, on the issue of SEQRA, when ora started eight or nine years a3o, there was an attempt by the DEC to have a coordinated review, and South-- hold Toon was invited to join in that coordinated review, but close not to. Southold Town Planning Board 18 May 3, 1993 Mr. Gazza: It seems litre we're going to be pulled bac', into the SEQRA process when there's already been quite an e;ctensive SEQRA wor`c done by the state DEC. Mr. Ward: What application was that on? Mr. Gazza: The overall subdivision requirr_s DEC. . . Mr. Ward: You're saying there was SEQRA revie,�T, was teat on a particular application you're referring to? Mr. Gazza: The DEC commenced their review on the entire subdivision appli- cation. All of the lots, looking as a whole, the DEC SEQRA. And they invited Southold to do a coordinated, by several letters, and Southold either declined or didn't accept, I don't 'snow how you :could put it- Ms. Scopaz: We have a letter from the DEC where we questioned that. And basically they came to the conclusion that the Town should conduct it's own environmental review. ide have to reach our own determination of significance, ani we'r= having a separate action. The fact that the Town didn't take part in the DEC review for it's permit apparently didn't preclude the Tocm from doing it's own coordinated review, including the DEC in with it as well. That was outlined in a prior letter in F2'-:ruary of 1992. So the DEC, so far as I am aware, the DEC and the Town are on the same wavelength. The DEC has no objec- tion to t'he Town conducting it's own review. Mr. Gazza: I would agree teat ti-, DEC would allow you to further review it, and you certainly 'lave that right under SEQRA to commence another review. But, it has been reviewed over a nine year period. Maybe we're not reviewing the right things. Mr. McDonald: Well, let me just offer you this. If all the data is all there, you're all ready to go, the thing to do is get it together and let's start the review process, :whatever bre need, and then we can move this thing ahead. If you've got all the data, let's get the process. . .get all the data, put it dorm and maybe we're there. Mr. Gazza: Well, from the review with the DEC that's been conducted, they're focusing on the issue of crossing tie wetland area with the proposed road, and they're very concerned about this area, as well as the Southold Town Trustees, whom I 've had a meeting ;•rit'h in the field, and this is sort of the focal point of this subdivision, so to spea'r. 7-ie DEC suggested that alternate access be obtained for the peninsula. They're suggesting coming through and connecting into the Harold Reese subdivision access road. And the DEC is hesitant to approve this configuration until we have exhausted the possibility of obtaining access for the peninsula, other than crossing this wetland area. Now, I recog- nize that concern and that's going to he an important part of the review process under SEQRA. And thi.s one little focal point could expand the SEQRA and I could see the environmental- impact study focusing on this and becoming a few pages several_ inches thigh. Now, Mr. Lettieri and T recognize this, and we're trying to get an alternate way In. Mr. Lettieri maybe you could e�qjlai.n to the Board about our efforts to. . . 0 9 Southold Town Planning Board 19 May 3, 1993 Mr. Lettieri: Well, we've met with Harold Reese on several occassions. On the last occassion I spore with him he said well wllen T get approval maybe we can wor'; out something. Mr. McDonald: What's Mr. Reese's status rig'?t now? He's got a preliminary approval right, but no final. Mr. Kiernan: We're waiting for Health Dept. approval. Ms. Scopaz: Right. Mr. McDonald: So we still hold Jurisdiction in the SEQRA ov^-r his project un- til we grant Vic final approval, right? Mr. Scopaz: What do you mean, do we still have jurisdiction? Mr. McDonald: Until. are grant our final approval, we hold jurisdiction over his SEQRA review. At any time we could re--open it to re--examine whatever aspects of it were pertinent. Ms. Scopaz: Technically, yes. Mr. McDonald: So it's probably important that you move ahead soli. Mr. Gazza: Well, Mr. Reese is not ohli.gate,!.. to grant us the access. Mr. Ward: What the SEQRA process is, to Put all this on the table, and male it a package and develop all the alternatives and loot at all the options, environmentally, economically, everything; that's the pac'cage that needs to he put together. The faster you get going with teat, the quicker you're going to resolve this subdivision. Mr. McDonald: As time goes by, just as you said, you're reducing your options in the access. Tt creates new prol)lems with the impact statement, if there is one. Whether t'leYe is one or not, for that matter. Mr. Gazza: Will there be one if. . . Mr. McDonald: Who knows? We don't have the application, we don't have the review, we don't have anything to look at to mage a determination, which is why we grant to move ahead. T thin!c if you got it in that you would strengt'.en your nand about the access over the alternate .route, rather than weal= it. But that's just my opinion. Mr. Kiernan: How did the DEC treat this matter? Mr. Gazza: The DEC prefers an alternate access route other than the crossing. Mr. Kiernan: Viat was their SEQRA determination? 0 0 Southold Town Board 20 May 3, 1993 Mr. Gazza: It hasn't been final. Mr. Kiernan: It's not final? Mr. Gazza: They want me to prove that T've echauster: the other alternative access route. Now, what is ez',austed mean? Does it mean we met with him over four years and been to his car dealership in Roc''ville Center two or three times. We sat dorm with him. We offered to pay for half of his road. We offered to share in the development costs of utilities. We've offered to buy a lot from him to get access in, we've. . . Mr. McDonald: I thins; a determination from us would essentially solve your problem with the DEC. If you had your determination, whatever it would be, they're probably going to loo'- at that and go, well if the Tp;an is signed off on that, we must move. So I thin' the best thing you can do is move yourself ahead here. Because every day that goes by, I don' t 'mow what'll happen with Mr. Reese, but if he finally does get his Health and lie's all loc',.ed up, we no longer have any jurisdiction over him and there's nothing I can do to help you. Even if the study would indicate it, I won't gave any ability to help you. I'm uncertain about my power even with it, but it's more than it would be once he has the final approval. Ms. Scopaz: You have to '-eep in mind he is moving ahead with it. It was on the agenda; he's starting with his lot line change, so he's moving a!-lead. . . Mr. Gazza: He's lice us, moving like. . .Can the Board give us any input on the layout that we've proposed? (CHANGE TAPE) Mr. McDonald: I would say the answer to that is the same thing. Without the SEQRA, to talk about the layout, we're not. . . Mr. Gazza: I was hoping to extract a little hit more from you than that, you :now this. . . Mr. McDonald: i wish I could give it to you, but I don't have it. Mr. Gazza: You 'mow, the applications have been 'sere awhile. I '-nova everyone has studied them and probably been on tLe property several times, and looked it over. When we started it was one acre zoning, now it's two acre zoning. Mr. McDonald: Well, that's another reason to put a rush on i.t then. Mr. Gazza: Three acre or five acre, wlhat's next? But, are we asking for soma-- thing that's reasonable by creating two acre lots, or do you think it's un- reasonable. We don't want to go down the wrong path. Some direction at this point could save us time and money and maybe give the Board ;chat you're looking for. Mr. McDonald: Your yield is determined by your hull-, that's. . . Mr. Gazza: Well, we could l.00'c at a formula and determine that, and I agree with you, hut. . . 0 Southo!. ' "bi:Tn Planning Board 21 May 3, 1993 Mr. McDonald: Until we even stake out the wetlands, how do we even '.mow what the hulk is? Mr. Gazza: We know where the wetlands are by DEC and by Town Trustee inspec- tions and site. . . Mr. McDonald: Our expert has to take a look at it. We're like everybody else. we go out there, and as a layman I have an idea, right, but our expert is going to go over it and say yes, X, Y and Z that's OK. We agree with this line, we don't agree, and if there's a fight, there's a fight; if not then we can go ahead and figure your bulk and we're on our way. We've got to start about where we're headed. We really need to get into the process. I had thought after the last meeting, was it a year ago the last time you were here? Mr. Orlowski: You have a tendency to show up every spring. Is there a reason for that? Mr. McDonald: I thought that that's where we were going to head then, but obviously I crossed a wire in the way I understood it. Really, the rest suggestion I can give you is, get into the SEQRA on this and move it ahead. That's the step that you need to twee right now. Once that's behind us it's a giant leap forward. Mr. Gazza: Would I b2 correct in assuming that this would become a Type I under SEQRA? Mr. Ward: Because of it's location? Mr. McDonald: I'm wondering, is that a CEA? Mr. Ward: Yes, it is. Mr. McDonald: 7nen it's a Type I, we have nothing to say about it. Mr. Gazza: So as a Type I, we're tal':ing. . . Mr. McDonald: It's a long form. Mr. Gazza: It's a long form and we're tal'-,ing about a supplemental DEIS as a presumption. Do you thine it's a good presumption? Mr. McDonald: You do the long form and we' ll see. It's been a year since I've been out there. Mr. Lettieri.: There's no way we could possibly circumvent that, if ;re change the configuration. . . Mr. McDonald: The only thing r. can give you as a guide on that is, the people that were in here liefore you, the Peconic Land Trust, hael a similar application, a Tyne I, and what they did to their Subdi.visi.on, and you can get a loo': at it in the file, was such that they mitigated all the potential problems in ad.- vance, in that subdivision, and they got a Negative Declaration. They were 0 0 Southold Town Planning Board 22 May 3, 1993 Type I, and they submitted a long form, it was a long Part 3, but it wasn't any impact statement, that's for sure, and they got a Negative Declaration. Mr. Gazza: Well, going along with that idea, if we overcome the hurdle of this crossing, we might mitigate all t'» environmental concerns, or the majority of them. Mr. McDonald: Yeah, but that's kind of inverted. Yes, if you can find a way to mitigate them, you solve one of your problems. And that's the '-ind of thing you're looking for. Maybe your plan should show the alternate access. I don't know legally, maybe you need to get up to the Torm Attorney on that, to see what power we have in that respect. Mr. Gazza: Well, we Won't have a legal access. . Mr. mcDonald: I'm not tal'eing what power you 'lave; ,what power we have. I don't ,now if we can give you something that you can't necessarily give yourself. Mr. Gazza: Well, I have made prior requests to the Board to try to induce the subdivision adjacent to ours to have a coordinated access or a coordinated road system, rather than have two roads side by side. I have pursued that. Mr. McDonald: We read your letter. Believe me we pay attention to these letters, too, but we ':pep waiting. . .I believe everything you're telling me, but in our paperwork, for our review, none of this is corroborated ':�y our ex- perts or anything else. We have a map, yes, but our experts haven't even been out there to say, yes, X, Y 7, he's absolutely rig°,t. So t'ut's why we need to get into this process. Mr. Ward: I think basically, to let a year go ;without getting involved with your SEQRA process, and by now you would have leen done; let's get in it and get it going. Mr. Gazza: We were hoping to reach a settlement with the subdivi.sion next door to use their road system, to eliminate this, which would really save us alot of work, the whole process, save the environment. . . Mr. McDonald: Moving ahead strengthens your hand. The more you wait, the weaker your hand gets. once that final approval, there's literally nothing we can do. Mr. Lettieri: He seemed to indicate, at least to me, that he was waiting for his final approval and then we could discuss it, but then. . . Mr. McDonald: Well, that's between you and him; maybe ypu can. Mr. Latham: You tal'cing to Mr. Reese, Jr.? Mr. i,tti.eri: Yes, junior. Mr. Kiernan: Have you spol-en to Mr. Reese's attorney in an effort to try to move this. 0 0 Southold Town Planning Board 23 May 3, 1993 Mr. Gazza: Yeah, I think T have. I'm going back a year or two ago, I don't even remember his name anymore, but T did converse with his attorney. He has complications. He has a bank mortgage on all the property. He's hesitant to grant us any right of way until he get's 'iis subdivision finalized. He's afraid that it might jeopardize, to the slightest degree, his subdivision, and he doesn't want to take that chance. Mr. McDonald: Well., that's what would help you here. If we, in our review, said that that was advantageous, it takes that argument away from him. ' Obviously, we're not going to stop his subdivision for that reason if we're suggesting that that be done. Although, some people would thin)-, that that's the way we *.cork. Ms. Scopaz: You should he aware that all of your papenrorik' is at the environ- mental consultants, and it has been there for last year. h'e're just waiting for the check; he's ready to move on it. The hall's in your court. Mr. McDonald: Is there anyway that we can. . .obviously, money is an issue too. Can we make this one application? Ms. Scopaz: They have chosen not to merge their property. Mr. McDonald: If they made one application, would the fee he lower? Ms. Scopaz: I don't !-now, because the consultant is already charging him less than they usually charge. Usually, the fee is $400 per application. But be- cause this is a group application and all the properties are contiguous to one another, they've reduced the rata to. . . Mr. McDonald: If he made one application, would he be paying $400? Ms. Scopaz: Right. Mr. Latham: Well we don't 'snow. Mr. McDonald: There's an option. You've got to make your own decision, but if you want to reduce the cost, you mal=e one application and then you pay the $400 instead of paying. . . Ms. Scopaz: What they have chosen in the purchase of the property is in five separate forms of ownership and they've chosen not to merge their properties. Mr. McDonald: Well, that's OK too. Mr. Lettieri: Mr. Gazza owned this property -- that's how I met Mr. Gazza. Ms. Scopaz: He's suggesting it would be cheaper. . . Mr. Lettieri: I know and T appreciate that very much. Why don't we try that? Mr. Gazza: I don't want to merge my land with your land. Please, we've been trying for 10 years to break them apart, now you want to put them together? 0 0 Southold Town Planning Board 24 May 3, 1991 Mr. Inttieri: Are we just merging an application? We're not merging land? Mr. Kiernan: Does the ownership of the land have to be merged in order to consider it an single application? Mr. McDonald: I don't think so. Mr. Ward: I thin'- you can combine applications. Mr. McDonald: Yeah, I thin': you can combine the application without combining the land. Essentially, you've done that already, you've come in as a group and you're going. . . Mr.Lettieri: Well, we did this to show the Planning Board aE the time, because I 'm not a developer by any means, obviously you can tell; when Joe said to me well, why don't we show the Planning Board exactly what you want to do and what I want to do within one application, to give them a better feel of what we're trying to do here. T at's why when we first submitted our applications and our details, we showed it as one continuous application or blueprint or whatever you want to call it. Theoretically, there are five minor subdivisions and even with this here being right off the Main Rd. , I could have applied as a minor subdivision with no problem whatsoever, because there is no DEC approval that I would require over here. But I thought, and Joe suggested, why don't we let the Planning Board know what we're trying to approve so they can loo'- at it as an overall picture. Unfortunatley, we weren't bright enough to realize along side of us that someone else was doing, at that time I think even Billy Joel was buying the land. So we had no idea what anyone else was doing here other- wise we would have tried to meet with the people that owned the land here to try to go this way because we didn't, know that we going to have a problem. Because there is a farm road that goes over the wetlands that has been used for many years. Mr. Latham: Yes, it Goes right down near the bay, very low. Ms. Scopaz: Mark, one thing to '-eep in mind, if they choose to come in as one application, it then converts the whole application in the Health Departments eyes from a minor to a major. Mr. McDonald: Oh yeah. Mr. Lettieri: That would create a problem. Mr. Ward: It, sounds like the $1200 is the cheapest way out. Mr. Lettieri: Yes, OK. Mr. McDonald: You will he at the Board of Review up there? Mr. Latham: This is your road adjoining Reese's? If you came in with this, you could put your own road at least, this far, without any problem, couldn't you? Southold Town Planning Board ?5 May 1, 1993 Mr. Lettieri: You mean if we wor'ced out something with Reese? Mr. Latham: No, right in here. You don't have to work out, anything to start your own road here, do you? Mr. Lettieri: That's correct, right. (Everyone talking) Mr. McDonald: Yes, but their thin'ci.ng is, that if you're going to mace the road from here to here, why two roads, why not oma? Mr. Latham: It would he less than paying Mr. Reese for it, but you have to pay someone I guess. Mr. Lettieri: Well, we thought he would save some bucks and.. . Mr. McDonald: You could mace a deal, sure. Mr. Gazza: We offered to pay half. Not only the road but the utilities. Mr. McDonald: I think you're probably going to ta've a hard look at that in the SEQRA because that's one of the number one mitigations that you're going to tall-, about. You're going to talk about not disturbing that wetland at all for the road anymore. We're talking about trying an alternative. Mr. Gazza: The configuration of lots on the peninsula, can the Board just give us a little input on that? I know you've all loo'ced at it and I know this is a very visible spot. Mr. McDonald: I've got to go bac': to the file and really dig in again. Be- cause there's such a mass of different lots and everything else. Mr. Ward: Generally speaking, is that I thin'-, we'd be in favor of reducing the length of the road even if it meant that wherever there were lots we'd have some flag lots or something to eliminate some road paving and other problems. But I think these are all things that would be addressed in the environmental review. You're asking for an off the top of the head comment there's one, the cul--de--sac shouldn't be that far out on a peninsula, things like that. But these are all things that would be addressed in the environmental review. Mr. Gazza: I'm trying to clean up the map. If we can clean it up and mace it better, it mal-es for less review and gets you something closer to what you're loo'eing for as an end product. Do you find fault with three lots on the point? Mr. Orlows'ci: We could give you all these answers tonight, but after we do the environmental review it'll change the whole thing. Mr. McDonald: I want to make another comment. We need to he very careful. If this is a Type i action, and we are negotiating about what you want to. do, in a sense, obviously you're only listening, you're not agreeing to anything, you're just getting continents. Are we conditionalizing your approval in such a way that we mal-e your SEQRA illegal? This is a Type I action. We cannot issue a conditional approval, which means we can't sit down with your map and start making deals about this map to mitigate the impacts on it. You can submit Southold Toim Planning Board 26 May 3, 1993 whatever you want and try to minimize it, and you can read our experts report and come back with a different application to try to ta'ce care of that. But if lie sit down and start trying to actually mitigate these; I'm not sure, ',ut I get the strong feeling that that's a conditionalization, in a sense, and not legal. I'm not sure of that, but everything I 've read gives me that impress- ion. It may not be formally conditional declaration, but it is in fact because you've made all these decisions to mitigate it. I ':now it's technical. Mr. Latham: I think you're right. Mr. McDonald: Because we've been sued about this and lost. Mr. Ward: Can I make a suggestion? Do you still have some more you'd li'*e to go over? Mr. Gazza: Well, there's one more point. We have on the peninsula now, four separate lots that have access over a farm road right of way that's been in existence since Wendel, before Tabor and Jouboken. 7^iose four lots, would they qualify for four building permits at this time? Mr. Ward: Well, you'd have to prove access. Mr. Kiernan: Four single and separate lots? Mr. Gazza: We have four single and separate lots. Mr. McDonald: With access, you'd ?x entitled. Mr. Gazza: Would we have to come before your Board for determination as to the improvement of that access road? Mr. McDonald: No. Mr. Kiernan: You mace an application to the Building Dept. , they grant it and no one challenges their building permit; you're in. If they deny you, you need to go the 7BA for a 280A variance. . . Mr. McDonald: Or whatever else he denied you for. Mr. Gazza: Who would set the improvement criteria for the access road.? Mr. McDonald: ZBA. Mr. Gazza: If we didn't have to go to 7BA, could the Building Dept. determine crushed stone or. . . Mr. McDonald: If you don't have access, you have to go to the ZBA, so if you do have access then he just gives it to you. He just gives you your building permit. That's all there is to it. It's either black or white. Ms. Scopaz: Well, you have to have H?alth Dept.. approval on that lot. Snuthold Town Planning Board 27 May 3, 1993 Mr. Gazza: OK, so we're starting out with four lots on the peninsula, coming to the table, which we have, and we're asking for nine. Is that too much to ask for? Mr. Orlowski: Four is better, if you're as'cing us. Mr. Lettieri: I think what Joe is really trying to say and I don't thin'c he's looking for a commitment, he's just saying do we have to go through this whole thing and in your heart of hearts you're saying there's no way we're going to approve this, maybe if you came in with less, the chances are. . . Mr. McDonald: I used Plock as an example to the people who were just here. There was some talk: they were entitled to 14, no one ever figured it, but they were entitled to at least 10, I'm only guessing. Mr. Gazza: That's the oyster farm? Mr. McDonald: Yeah. They did four building lots; actually five lots. Now I'm not proposing any ratio or any equi.valancy there. I'm just telling you that they did that and they got a Negative Declaration because what they did miti- gated the problems they were facing. You need to look at it in the same light. I can't tell you the number, because again that's conditionalizing it. You need to make decisions about what is in your best judgement and what you think from what you've read. You got alot of material from the DEC, you've done alot of work already. Mr. Latham: They won't let you bridge this in any way? Mr. Gazza: They said a ',ridge was their alternative two or alternative three, after we've exhausted an alternate access. They have a classification of alternatives that. . . Mr. McDonald: I hope it's two, because if it's three you've got another one after this. . . Mr. Lettieri: I guess you all know Frank Cichanowicz, because I have shown this to Frank many years ago and he's a designer of beautiful things and he said we could really do a nice job. You wouldn't disturb anything and for whatever reason, the DEC seems to want us to go another way until we can't get. . . Mr. Latham: There's a big hole down there with a fresh water pond in it, isn't it? Mr. Gazza: Right here. Mr. Latham: A big deep hole. Very good ,rater. North of you there were three, four or five big lots. Are they still there? Mr. Lettieri_: I have no idea. Mr. Latham: This isn't Harold Reese's here, or is it? Southold Town Planning Board 28 May 3, 1993. Mr. Lettieri: Yes, that's his. Mr. Ward: OK you fo1'.cs can stay a couple of minutes, I'd just like to close the hearing and 'yet rid of our tape at this point. Mr. McDonald: I mace a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Latham: Seconrl. Mr. Ward: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Motion passed. There being no further business to come hefore the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha Jones Secretary RichG. Ward, Chairman � lz u� PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman • ,� � ' "" Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald "� P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 March 17 ; 1993 Mr. Joseph Frederick Gazza Attorney at Law P.O. Box 969 5 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Dear Mr. Gazza; This is to confirm that the Planning Board will be available to speak with you and Mr. Letterri at the close of its March 22nd meeting at Town Hall. The meeting will start at 7 : 30 PM. I suggest you arrive shortly thereafter. I apologize for the lateness of this letter but staff has been unsuccessful in reaching you by telephone for the last week. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz v Town Planner UFF (A 0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS v SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 March 24, 1993 Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O.Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Joseph Frederick Gazza Grundbesitzer Corp. and Andrew Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 , 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: This is in response to your telephone call indicating that Mr. Lettieri would not be able to attend the Planning Board' s March 22nd meeting. This is to confirm that you have rescheduled your joint meeting with the Planning Board to the close of its May 3rd public meeting. The meeting will start at 7 : 30. It is suggested that you be there shortly thereafter. Sincerely, ',/,.� Va/1 Scop Town Planner JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA 6W6Fi(� PB ATTORNEY AT LAW V5N P.O. BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE Rlow S QUOGUE,NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) February 13, 1993 Southold Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Minor Subdivision at Dam Pond East Marion Dear Mr. Chairman Ward, I am in receipt of your letter D. 1/15/93 pertaining to the above referenced and have discussed same with Mr. Lettieri at Florida. e befre Boardtoediscuss lthis pmatter linrMarchequestatoaadatetppearthatois your convenient for your Board. I am available to meet with the Board sooner however Mr. Lettieri will only be returning to New York in March. Thank you for consideration to this request. Very 1 y0 rs,I JOSEPH FR*LD'D PICK GAZZA cc : Andre -, Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers, New York 10701 I 2d SOUTHOLDTOWN PLANNING BOARD Xk:, . cd✓ Co PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �. PVT SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman 4 t ��� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 .January 15, 1993 Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Odgen Lane Quogue, NY 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM#1000-22-3-19 Bernice Lettieri SCTM#1000-22-3-20 Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM#1000-22-3-21 Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri SCTM#1000-22-3-22 Andrew Lettieri SCTM#1000-31-5-1.2 Dear Mr. Gazza: This letter is in reference to the Board' s letter to you of April 9, 1992, (copy enclosed) , requesting the environmental review by its consultants. State Environmental Quality Review Act was started in December 1991 and has not moved forward due to lack of payment of the environmental review fees. Please indicate in writing whether you wish to proceed or close the file. If you decide to proceed, the review fee is $300. 00 per application made out to the Town of Southold for the total amount of $1500.00. Page 2 Proposed minor subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond Joseph Frederick Gazza If you have any questions please so not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Richard G. Ward Chairman Encl. o�O;UFFO��-c y Y-k-' s+,u aLW PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS u- . j_ �_,iv+'',� ,� SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman d .<.::, r Supervisor �� .. .. George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward =3 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 9, 1992 Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O.Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: This is in response to your letters of March 10th and MArch 25th, 1992. First, the justifications for the Planning Board' s position vis-a-vis the classification of these applications and need for an environmental review by its consultants have been set forth in past correspondence. Second, the Southold Town Planning Board has not been able to complete its review of the environmentally related issues because the environmental review fee has not been paid. Upon receipt of payment, the Board will authorize its consultant to proceed. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA 4 ATTORNEY AT LAW F.O. Box 969 5 OGDEN LANE 9uocuE,NEw YORK 11959 [ Q [d) (np (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) �TR I Southold Town Planning Board :_ x PIAS NN�O TOWN 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Pending minor subdivision application at Dam Pond, East Marion Section #1000-022-03-019, 020, 021 , 022 and 031-05-1 . 2 Dear Board Members, The above referenced minor subdivision application has been pending with your board since July 16th, 1985. During the course of your 6 3/4 years review of these applications the major obstacle to obtaining approval of the division as been access . It is obvious to any reviewer of the above referenced that the proposed subdivision and road system of the adjacent tract of land "Cove Beach Estates" should be coordinated with our subdivision. -Your board has failed to even attempt to coordinate the road systems of adjacent subdivi- sions. The undersigned has , since 12-6-1981 ,requested in writing to your board eleven ( 11 ) times to provide for a common road system rather than two roads running parallel•'with others over 1200 feet . The NYS DEC had on 9-20-1991 outlined by lettir (copy attached) that the roadway as proposed independently on our subdivisions could be expected to adversely impact tidal wetlands and recommended that access to our property be by using the proposed street or the adja- cent property to the west, Cove Beach Estates . The DEC continued in W A that the Cove Beach Road would be the most efficient as well as the most environmentally sound solution . The Southold Town Trustees have informed your board on 1-21-92 that they are not in favor of our proposed road system in the area where it crosses the wetland area and further that this wetland. area may in fact be trustee land and not available for road access . It is apparent to the undersigned that your board is oblivious to my eleven requests and the requests of the NYS DEC and Southold Town Trustees , which all uniformly agree that a coordinated road system be designed to promote proper planning and safeguard environ- mentally fragile areas. Your board 's failure to provide even a "spur" to allow interconnection of adjacent subdivision and road systems .4g,, between Cove Beach Estates and our lands amounts to poor plannin4 I respectfully request that your board reconsider the access issues set forth above prior to your granting final approval to the Cove Beach Estates subdivision map and road access system. I am available to meet with your board to discuss this issue at your convenience . Surveys depicting coordinated road systems have been previously submitted by the undersigned, to your board . Please advise, -Y) I . 7r cc: Andrew and Bernice Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers , New York Io7lo Joseo G zza encl . • O�rfi �r7rvtvC 9j /�i'9Z . .PitlL�Ct-�� via : Certified Mail RRR Z,0a#. I l u u u l_j 1 u 1 • SENDER: Complete Rama 1 end t when Wplppll/1 a/lWu.v .. ., -- .: - 3 and a. Certified Mall Recei t Put Your eddren bl the"RETURN TO"Spe on t revana side.Failure to do thIn will pr No Insurance Coverage Provi Irl rdeliturnedery,to you.The return t as will services you the name 1 o ars Do not use for InIPmPliOnPl M e o elrver For ed mono east owing aemces ere evaTSfe. onsu t poetm en c ec ox es or eddltionel servlceU ueetad. ....... (See Reverse) 1. ❑ Show to whom delivered, date,and addressee's address. :,2. ❑ Restricted Dell Se(m loVJ (Exna charge) - . (Exrm charge) . �bv"11s.i�?uv �IMwt- Ro Aid 3. Article Addressed to: - 4. Article Number Slmet M1 Na. P�QA a 3 70 SouTl+c Id TOUJ() PIPiU1UWC. MAS pe of Service + ! 1. r ��(e (n'epletered '. � Ins'u'red x. v, PO.Sime 8 ZIP Code !r-7/ Vert y. -.V 0 CPO, +" M4V Vo-k �19� .5 d I ( �j 1 �'i• Return RaCelli GOT, + l / �� m � �J9 Iprea►Mml "Q for Mer ha las (bstege Q ,p J lY we s b elenature of OWNS, a est a ATE DELIVERED Ceml,I Fee /u. - 5. Signature - Addresses f ddressee's Address (ONLK It re Spacial DO",FeeX _ ... f9' requeJred and Jae paid) lu Restricted MGrery Fee 5. Sign B —Agent A 6a., neturn Recnipl Snowing z, t in l#i.Rl m to whom hemd - - 7.Late of Delivery itr.s m nates Race' Wnom. � N Dale,6 revs o *u,g,Q T0.tese•esbB5 i DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989 >,. T Go Poetma� r ae� E N a A es:ri}119 y�{9"tS1,-.t.p.'rcit�.r a. r •t f zGk`J r w n it 1i/ yrs,^��{.�^ f1r {`yer.in+r 10 1. ii + r Jai r • . . _ %I • �mu.v. I 5 .. !I i_ a Sy. _ i 5 O A •� A I J + r,JM1• J� p. _� JM1n �45p s6 .L •� \� L !9 f a 2 %: t 4 •b, ° �'' :y '`t1315 7 . 1 \ v no c, •� J`' , f• l ? ? •. � a„A oa J 1 i P Ill i l'. Ij HIM JE • / + o e. vv nv .. oro >n n, _. i.—d��n�-- .on lmj{l� t • i guFF04Co PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward !wY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 9, 1992 'Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O.Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: This is in response to your letters of March 10th and MArch 25th, 1992. First, the justifications for the Planning Board' s position vis-a-vis the classification of these applications and need for an environmental review by its consultants have been set forth in past correspondence. Second, the Southold Town Planning Board has not been able to complete its review of the environmentally related issues because the environmental review fee has not been paid. Upon receipt of payment, the Board will authorize its consultant to proceed. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri �r;0FF04 oG TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President o ta. SUPERVISOR `n '' SCOTT L. HARRIS 11 Henry P. Smith,Vice President W ,* Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. y'%1�1 .,_yE ���� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 27, 1992 Joseph F. Gazza Attorney at Law P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Re: SCTM #1000-22-3-20, 21, 22, 31-5-2 Dear Mr. Gazza: The Southold Town Trustees discussed your proposal to span town owned wetlands and waters in connection with your subdivision application, at some length, at our March 26, 1992 worksession. The Boards primary concerns surround wetland habitat fragmentation and potential degradation of the wetland associated with constructing homes and a road in this location. We believe these concerns can only be addressed through the SEQRA process and by comparing alternative development strategies. We do not want to overly encourage you in your endeavors for a road in this location. Absent a plan which would address our overall concerns for the site, which is contiguous to a Trustee designated Critical Environmental Area and a means of providing an easement which would clearly benefit the public (i.e. not provide an exclusive easement) we would be unable to help anyone wanting a road in this location. On face value, the Trustees might even have a problem with a public road in this location were the property entirely in public ownership. Any plans to develop the peninsula will have to take into account the possibility that the waters and nearshore areas of this "pond" are a finfish breeding area of considerable loc importance. SOUTHOLD TWIN PLANNING BOARD A resident population of white perch and immature striped bass exists in very close proximity to this wetlands on this parcel as a result of the unique water quality and habitats provided by this estuary. The waters of this creek system are directly impacted not only by the quality and quantity of groundwater inflow, but are tempered by Long Island Sound waters penetrating the course sand and gravel barrier beach at the north end of the pond in addition to the obvious influence of Orient Harbor and Gardeners Bay through the mouth of the creek. We would encourage any proposal which would preserve this peninsula, thus protecting the unique scenic attributes of this site and the attendant water quality and fisheries of the pond. As discussed briefly on field inspection, we anticipate the public outcry attendant with any proposed development plans for this site to be severe. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call. S' erely, �RR(py,.e,.s y= John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees cc. Planning Board JMB/djh • O��SUFFO(,�-� QG John M.BredemTRUeyer,I,President o� y'-Z SUPERVISOR Henry P.Smith,Vice President o SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednosid,Jr. '!!Ql �.�0 Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(5 16)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 27, 1992 EMIAR271992� ad �Joseph F. GazzaAttorney at Law P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959THOLD TOWNNNING HOARD Re: 22-3-20, 22-3-21, 22-3-22, 31-5-2 --- — Dear Mr. Gazza: The Southold Town Trustees discussed your proposal to span town owned wetlands and waters in connection with your subdivision application, at some length, at our March 26, 1992 worksession. The Boards primary concerns surround wetland habitat fragmentation and potential degradation of the wetland associated with constructing homes and a road in this location. We believe these concerns can only be addressed through the SEQRA process and by comparing alternative development strategies. We do not want to overly encourage you in your endeavors for a road in this location. Absent a plan which would address our overall concerns for the site, which is contiguous to a Trustee designated control environmental area and a means of providing an easement which would clearly benefit the public (ie) not provide an exclusive easement) we would be unable to help anyone wanting a road in this location. On face value, the Trustees might even have a problem for a public road in this location were the property entirely in public ownership. Any plans to develop the peninsula whatever will have to take into account the possibility that the waters and nearshore areas of this "pond" are a finfish breeding area of considerable local importance. A resident population of white perch and immature striped bass exists in very close proximity to this wetlands on this parcel as a result of the unique water quality and habitats provided by this estuary. The waters of this creek system are directly impacted not only by the quality and quantity of ground water inflow, but are tempered by Long Island Sound waters penetrating the course gravel Barren Beach at the north end of the pond and in addition to the obvious influence of Orient Harbor and Gardeners Bay through the mouth of the creek. We would encourage you in any proposal which would preserve this peninsula, thus protecting the unique scenic attributes of this site and the attendant water quality and fisheries of the pond. As discussed briefly on field inspection, we anticipate the public outcry attendant with any proposed development plans for this site to be severe. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees cc. Planning Board JMB/djh C A96I2A,s Cl/ cars vz-n+urT 7v __ /�2�sso• . Saco o,r, �(�i __. . MaA ita- Jnt.�, Tnv)L- sem, -Zclyk F. OA-Z" r DAM POND,MARION-SUBDIVISIONS SEQR SCOPING OUTLINE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND SUMMARY A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS The summary will include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant,beneficial and adverse impacts,(issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternatives considered I- Matters to be decided(permits,approvals,funding) L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE,NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history—History of acquisition and past use 2. Public need for the project,and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans—summarize municipal objectives from land use plan section 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 C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1. Total site area—describe unique features of the site which constrain use a) tidal wetlands b) freshwater wetlands c) surface water d) shallow groundwater e) unique habitat 2. Site Coverage Quantities--prepare a table of estimated site coverage quantities a) estimated building coverage b) estimated driveway coverage c) estimated subdivision road coverage d) estimated landscaped area(fertilized/unfertilized) e) estimated natural area 3. Structures--expected structures based on market and zoning code CRAMER, VO ►, & SOCIATES Page 1 ENVIRONMENT``?�I; G CONSULTANTS f R _ .Y\ Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist 4. Water Supply—ability to meet Article 4 and water quality standards 5. Sanitary Disposal—necessary fill and ability to conform to SCDHS design requirements 6. Stormwater Disposal--capacity and design requirements D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated--timing of development b) schedule of construction activities—particularly due to wildlife sensitive periods c) future potential development,on site or on adjoining properties 2 Operation a) type of operation—road/recharge dedication;open space dedication if applicable; are any future piers or waterfront structures contemplated b) schedule of operation—if applicable Iw APPROVALS 1. Permit approvals--list agency,permit and status a) Town of Southold Planning Board--subdivision b) Town of Southold Trustees--use of land;wetlands c) SC Dept.of Health Services—sanitary disposal and water supply d) NYS Dept.of Environmental Conservation—tidal and freshwater wetlands; protection of waters;water supply if greater than 45 gpm e) Army Corps of Engineers—if activity below spring high water;CZM consistency review,if applicable II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material—summarize test hole information 2. Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site - slopes - prominent or unique features B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) depth to groundwater b) seasonal fluctuations/tidal fluctuations c) water table contours and direction of flow d) discuss groundwater-surface water inter-relationship;discharge to surface water; tidal fluctuations CRAMER, V06-RHI 8d SOCIATES Paget ENVIRONMENT "/ �NG CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist C) determine existing water quality beneath the site in anticipated water supply zones f) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - location of existing wells - public/private water supply - agricultural uses 2. Surface Water a) describe Dam Pond estuary b) NYSDEC water supply classification c) determine tidal influences d) present water quality and salinity C. TERRESTRIAL,AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area;classify into habitats b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique,rare and endangered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity c) contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information concerning unique vegetation,habitats or wildlife species d) describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened and species of special concern 2. Wildlife a) perform on-site field inspections to determine wildlife occupying the site / b) consult references to determine species expected to occupy site based on habitat type c) list species associated with site;differentiate between species observed on site and species present on site;identity endangered,threatened and species of special concern d) contact NYS Natural Heritage Program for information concerning unique vegetation,habitats or wildlife species e) describe habitat needs and biological characteristics of all endangered, threatened and species of special concern 3. Wetlands a) describe wetlands and characteristics b) outline NYSDEC wetlands classifications and discuss importance/benefits of each type on or adjacent to the site Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION CRAMER, VOORHI . 8 SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENTq s' `NG CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist 1. Transportation Services a) describe access to the site,main road and internal road circulation b) describe ezissting level of use on Main Road—ferry traffic,seasonal traffic - a.m.and pm.peak hour traffic flow - vehicle mix - source of existing traffic c) make not of pedestrian environment and public transportation,if applicable - a.m.and p.m.peak hour traffic flow - vehicle mix - source of existing traffic B. LAND USE AND 70NING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area - make note of Cove Beach Estates and graphically identify open space areas b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area Master Plan Draft LWRP C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Educational facilities 2. Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Recreational facilities 5. Utilities D. DEMOGRAPHY E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the area b) description of natural areas of significant architectural design 2. Historic/Archaeological Resources a) describe existing historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community,or included on Statewide Inventory b) determine if previous historic structures existed on project site through review of historic maps available at libraries c) contact NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau for information pertaining to history and prehistory of the site III. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Review each aspect of the environmental setting in Section IV and provide a qualitative discussion of impacts with quantification of impacts where possible. Impacts that are not significant , `L�\\\��t CRAMER &AS\ \S� OCIATES Page ENVIRONANG CONSULTANTS • Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist need only be discussed to the point where this is demonstrated. Significant impacts should be discussed in detail appropriate for the scope of the impact The following key issues are noted- Sediment otedSediment control and erosion protection methods should be described to minimize siltation of wetlands and habitat areas and minimize erosion of proposed fill areas. ` Excavation for basements and sanitary systems should be discussed as related to soil quantities and erosion protection. ' Soils/Topographic Elevation/Depth to groundwater as related to functioning of sanitary systems. • Quantity and location of fill necessary to create properly functioning sanitary systems. • Nitrogen concentration in recharge and environmental/ecological impact on Dam Pond via groundwater underflow. A nitrogen budget should be performed,and discussion of direction of flow and setbacks should be discussed as related to these impacts. • Discuss project in view of Article 6 and SCDHS design criteria. Discuss Board of Review process,if applicable for sanitary systems. • Water quality beneath site and suitability for water supply wells. ' Impact of groundwater withdrawal from supply wells on existing hydrology. • Impact of the project on surface water by overland runoff from roads and fertilized areas. • Impact on significant habitats and specific species associated with these habitats. • Fragmentation of significant habitat particularly in view of Dam Pond and associated wetlands. Consideration should be given to the peninsula area,and alignment of habitat/open space areas with the adjacent Cove Beach Estates open space areas. • Impact on ability of NYSDEC designated wetlands to continue to provide benefits identified in Section H. • Conformance of project to land use plans and planning efforts/open space preservation strategies of the Town of Southold. • Vehicle trip generation and ability of roads to accommodate traffic ' Impact of the project on cultural resources including visual,and historic/archaeological resources which may be identified as a result of Section H. N. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section III. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material on site b) reuse topsoil for landscaped areas 2 Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites—proposed buffer areas c) design and implement soil erosion control plan 3. Topography a) avoid construction on areas or steep slope b) design adequate soil erosion devices to protect areas of steep slope B. WATER RESOURCES CRAMER, VOORiHIS &:<A SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENTAAI D � \�NG CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Souping Checklist L Groundwater a) ensure adequate sanitary design b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation examples: - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping a b) design adequate stormwater control system C �� TERRESTRIAL AND 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) time construction activities to avoid wildlife impacts Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION L Transportation--design adequate and safe access to project site to handle projected traffic flow B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. E-Aisting 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. CONDAUNPPYSERVICES 1. Police/Fire protection--ensure efficient access to residences on the site 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) provide buffering to improve aesthetics b) minimize road surface area and significant land disturbance 2. Historic/Archaeological—to be determined based on Section H. V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section IV that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section IV. VI. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative \\\\ //7) CRAMER, VOQ'RHIS &:', SSOCIATES Page6 ENVIRONMENT gp�Ahlp: ,`'r �NG CONSULTANTS i! .VM1 Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist 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. Conceptual sketch plans should accompany alternative design plans to provide a basis for comparison and analysis. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN L Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes 2. Clustering a) propose a cluster plan which avoids sensitive areas of the site as identified in Section II(Le.shallow groundwater,wetlands areas and interconnection corridors 3. Transfer of Development Rights a) determine other potentially suitable lands to receive development rights from all or a portion of the subdivisions with the intent of mi^.!^+-^g impact upon sensitive areas 4. Acquisition a) discuss feasibility of acquisition of all or the most sensitive portions of the overall project site in order tominimi impact upon sensitive areas B. NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers'need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section III that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. VIII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Indicate if project will cause additional growth in the area which would not otherwise occur. Consider access,utilities and precedent. IX. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studies,reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. Technical exhibits(if any) at a legible scale C. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included CRAMER, VOORHI &� �SNOCIATES Pagel ENVIRONMENTA�� '' \\\G CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS r SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Y Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 March 4, 1992 Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O.Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Bernice Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-21 Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1992 in which you protest payment of the environmental review fees that were quoted in our February 20th letter to you. Your letter questions the need for an environmental review by the Town. The attached letter from George W. Hammarth of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation explains why the Town must conduct its own environmental review. It also states that the "Town of Southold Planning Board must reach its own determination of significance." In order for the Southold Town Planning Board to make a determination of significance, and complete the environmental review, it must review five long environmental assessment forms for five separate Type I actions. (The prior fee of $70. 00 was for the review of a short assessment form for an Unlisted action. ) The quoted fee per application is $300. 00. This charge is not covered by the initial application fees that you paid in 1985. The consultant will not be authorized to proceed until we receive your check( s) made out to the Town of Southold in the total amount of $1500.00 or in separate checks of $300.00 apiece. In closing, it would be appreciated if you would send written authorizations from Andrew Lettieri and Bernice Lettieri to act as agent on their behalf. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, /l Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. VS:vs cc: Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri .�► O6 JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA W5 ATTORNEY AT LAW /�/� P.O.Box 969 3 OGDEN LANE / , QUOGUE.NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) February 25 , 1992 Planning Board of Southold Town P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Environmental Consultant Review Fees SCTM#1000-22-3-19 to 22 & 31-5-1 . 2 Dear Mr. Chairman Orlowski , A full environmental review persuant to SEQR was conducted by the NYS DEC over the past 4 years including a Stage 1 Archaeological survey. I possess documentation whereby the DEC attempted coordinated review with the Town and the Town failed to comply with the DEC request . It appears from your letter of 6/19/89(copy attached ) that the Town's own Environmental Review Firm "Szepatowski Associates Inc. " did a duplicate SEQR review of this matter at our expense. The suggestion that a third review of this matter be conducted by a new firm as an agent for the Town (your letter of 2/20/92 ) at an additional cost of $1500 .00 to us is uncalled for. Please advise , JOSEPH77AZZA Encl . cc : Andrew Lettieri Rol�ry 0 sUTslowlt I PLAN _.. 'Town Hall. 53095 Main Road O • (� P.O. Box 1179 N'by Soudiold. New York 11971 !� TF.LFPIIONF. (516) 765 1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 19, 1989 Joseph Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, NY 11959 RE: Gazza/Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3-( 19-22) Dear Mr. Gazza: A review of our books indicates that the fees for the ongoing environmental review of the above-referenced project subject to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act have not been paid. Enclosed you will find a copy of the bill that was sent to the Planning Board by its environmental consultant, Szepatowski Associates, Inc. for the review of the above-named project to date. It would be appreciated if you would submit the balance, which is $70. 00, to this office by July 3, 1989. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. y truly yours, BENNETT ORl_LOWSKI,JR. , CHAIRMAN cc: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney John A. Cushman, Town Accountant M1 SZEI•ATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTAN IS n y—u 16 DATE. Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr. 8/26/88 Planning Board Chairman Southold Town Hall NUMBER 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Angel Shores $ 905 .00 August Acres $ 615.00 Harold Reese/Cove Beach $ 885.00 Norris Property/Carr-Wanat $ 900.00 Marina Bay Club , $ 70.00 Cedarfields $ 35 . 00 Gazza/Lettieri $ 35. 00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE _ $3445. 00 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT THANK YOU 4 l 7EU U OICExz�SLEPAIOWSKI ASSOCIAIIS INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ��11 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD DATE September 29 , 198E Mr. Bennet Orlowski, Jr. NUMBER Planning Board Chairman Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Angel Shores $ 70.00 Cove Beach Estates $ 455.00 Norris Property/Carr-Wanat $ 435 .00 Tidemark/Cliffside $ 100.00 Hanauer . & Bagley $ 425 .00 Gazza/Lettieri $ 35 .00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE _ $1520 .00 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT THANK YOU ly D ti y� o f PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS W ', '; ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward r} Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald ��� P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 February 20, 1992 Joseph Frederick Gazza P.O.Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Bernice Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Dear Mr. Gazza: The Southold Town Planning Board has referred the Long Environmental Assessment Form and map for the above-named subdivision to its environmental consultant for review. The cost of this review will be three hundred ( $300) dollars. The consultant will be authorized to proceed once we receive your check made out to the Town of Southold in the amount stated above. In closing, I must remind you that we have not received written authorization from Mrs. Lettieri for you to act on her behalf . If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Bernice Lettieri CRAMER, V fiH ,i OCIATES ENVIRONMENT 4 G CONSULTANTS February 18, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman, Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Requests for cost estimates for five subdivision applications under the names of Joseph Frederick Gazoa (2 applications), Bernice Lettieri,Andrew Letticri, and Grundbesitzer and Andrew Uttieri. Dear Benny: As per my conversation witk, Valerie Scopaz, the fee to review the above referenced subdivision applications is $300.00 per project. If there is any questions or the need for additional information please: fee'. free to call. �u1 erely/J //� Charles J. Voorhis, C; P,ArCP FEB 1 _ SOUTHOLDTOWN PLANNING BOARD 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 3311455 JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA � ✓ ATTORNEY AT LAW 11-15 P.O.Box 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE,NEW YORK 11959 (51 6)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) February 11, 1992 Board of Trustees Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed minor subdivisions Lettieri & Gazza SCTM# 1000-022-03-019,020,021,022 & 1000-031-05-001.2 Gentlemen, I represent the owners of the above referenced parcels of land which have been under minor subdivision review since 1985. It is unfortunate that I was not apprised that your Board would be discussing the above referenced "at some length" at your 1/16/1992 work session. Prior to your preparing any formal resolution regarding access to our lands I respectfully request the opportunity to address your Board on the following issues: 1. Fee Title ownership to the above referenced parcels as conveyed by Deeds throughout each lots chain of title describes land as shown on Suffolk County Tax Map(copy attached) . 2. The low land lying along the boundary lines of Lot 19 & Lot 001.2 has been designated by the NYS DEC as containing plant species that: survive in a wetland area however this land area is not "underwater land". (*) 3. The ownership of lands of the Town of Southold is shown as "Dam Pond" on the tax map photocopy enclosed. By what document do you base your statement that the land along the boundary of Lot 19 & 1.002 is "Town Trustee Land" (P2 of 1/21/92 correspondence of Town Trustees to Town Planning Board. ) (*) The High water line of Dam Pond is accurately shown on the County Tax Map and our surveys and does not extend west of the South West corner of Lot 20. 4. The early Title to the above referenced parcels can be traced to Seth H. Tuthill who designated this land the "Rocky Point Farm"'. On 3/20/1857 Joseph Lewis Tuthill & William S. Hobart Executors of the last will and testament of Seth H. Tuthill conveyed the "Rocky Point Farm at Liber 63 page 91 to Jonathan Truman & George Tuthill. George Tuthill who died in 1870 left a will recorded at Liber E Page 155 and Liber 10 page 602. George Tuthill's heirs at law were Henry H.C. Tuthill and Juliett M. Lamphear. In the early 1900's, Henry H.C.Tuthill & Juliett M. Lamphear by Deed Liber 458 page 402 divided the peninsula into lots as they appear on the tax map today. Rights of way to these lots via travelled farm roads have existed since their creation to the main road. The travelled farm road that crosses the lowland area of Lot 19 & 001.2 exists at an elevation of over 6ft. above mean sea level. This road provides ingress & egress for auto and truck, contains no wetlands on it and my individual use thereof has been uninterupted during my 14 years of ownership of Lots 19 & 21. The peninsula was farmed land and as such required continuous cul+lv.4*,-v by farm equipment & tractors. The idea of restricting RN r.Ad ,,,,ti,.6 i,' rA, o,(y 4e,A4 4cc� fc over 20 acres for use only by foot(P3 your getter s.y..e_)is a matter our attention will undoubtedly be focusing on at our meeting. Kindly advise when I may appear before your Board to discuss the above referenced. Res ctfully submitted, JOSEPH I GAZZA Encl. cc: Andrew & Bernice Lettieri i e r p� 5 \ A" CIt .^� \ y •••.rl f Y.D.fe .�.} u�— O n f / . '•fes` `\ ' 111 � M. M/ .� aQi •° - Le...m 3e.rl M1 e _ o - ef.•. � No It It It ��lu• �j `��° - _ 1 t Ye a[is e.o 'y,r[, 1♦f` 17 .e•\ +Nj'• 1 �-' , n-\ fe-o.enr '�Pf r • i IN 1 nr :' 4 • JW IP „W O ••f sem' a i•'P'O • II •,...W ..f i j Oyu. •y � f.".s 13 `•�y e[I!r Y.Ir IL r ' � �o j � • l • �j 5 ♦y ' 'r y MARION LAKE /� •,Of ..� i♦ w,I,y 9 � 111.. � r r� � • � i' _ ID'/ � / SFS �r w !� MARON LAKE %P / 1 •' \\'.'. ,.:'K ro�Y ar`aourneu ,. .I„„��d'/ \�b •� � p a r 6� �a1tiFo3( � 6 O� � o v4 t PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS " ` i , SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman . , `� h Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward y Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 February 4, 1992 Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Bernice Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Dear Mr. Gazza: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at its meeting on Monday, February 3, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type I action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board will wait for receipt of a report from the Board of Trustees regarding the accuracy of the wetlands line before proceeding with its determination. It would be appreciated if you could send written confirmation that you have been authorized by Mrs. Lettieri to act as her agent on this application. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. l/ Chairman Encl. Trustee Report CC: Bernice Lettieri, Applicant Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Planning Commission Suffolk County Department of Health Services (Attn: Robert DeLuca) N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation - Allbany cc: N.Y. S. Department of Environmental Conservation - Stony Brook (Attn: George Hammarth) N.Y. S. Department of State (Attn: Mohabir Persaud) N.Y. S. Department of Transportation (Attn: Charles Kilduff) TRUSTEESCO�� /!5 John M.Bredemeyer,III,President o SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President ti 2 SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. cp < John L.Bednoski,Jr. ^!� a�� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 1 & 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board FROM: John Bredemeyer, I ra Board of Trustees((((JJJ i) � RE: Proposed minor Subdivision: Bernice Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3-21 Grundbesitzer Corp. - Andrew Lettieri ! SCTM #1000-22-3-22 SOUTh(A.,T^•'',4V Andrew Lettieri SCTM #1000-31-5-1. 2 Ptn,�r;ua,_?Ca?o DATE: January 21, 1992 The Southold Town Trustees concur with your classification of the above referenced proposed minor subdivisions as type I actions for being contiguous with our Town Trustee CEA. Additionally, this Board would like to go on record as opposed to the road or bridge or similar structure shown over Town Trustee land between the Andrew Lettieri and Joseph Gazza parcels. As in the case of Wade Vs. the Town Trustees, we are not inclined to permit any exclusive easement over Trustee owned underwater lands and wetlands. This item is not negotiable. The Board discussed this at some length during our January 16, 1992 work session and will prepare a formal resolution reflecting this consensus should you or the developer(s) request it. The Trustees will, however, not oppose reasonable uses such as catwalk ramp and float assemblies for individual or community use for small vessels or to bridge wetlands for access by foot. Since the wetlands have previously been delineated by the NYSDEC we are asking that Bruce Anderson, our environmental Consultant, confirm their accuracy. Provided the wetlands are properly designated, we may not require an additional natural resource review from Mr. Anderson should your Board retain its consultant for purpose of a review of the LEAF. Owing to the sensitive nature of this area, we would request that all buildings be located greater than 75 ' landward of the accepted wetland line and that the most stringent land use practices be encouraged though C & R' s. This Board will be interested in participating in any scoping session should one be necessary. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. cc: Bruce Anderson �► i PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �j rn ` f I" ,* �' SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward { '` Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald s` "' P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 February 4, 1992 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Attached requests for cost estimates for five subdivision applications under the names of Joseph Frederick Gazza ( 2 applications) , Bernice Lettieri, Andrew Lettieri, and Grundbesitzer and Andrew Lettieri. Dear Messeurs Cramer and Voorhis: As will become evident upon a reading of the enclosed materials, the Planning Board, the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the County Departmept of Health Services are reviewing these five separate applicaTions together. It would be appreciated if you would take this into consideration in your estimate of time and cost of review. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman �1 • THE MAP THAT ACCOMPANIED THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAP FILE FOR THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISIONS: 1000-22-3-19 1000-22-3-20 1000-22-3-21 1000-22-3-22 1000-31-5-1 . 2 y;l• ` f : A s r? r. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS" SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �, ., 9 : + r Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. `llJ Richard G. Ward -' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald �� P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 February 4, 1992 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Bernice Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Dear Messuers Cramer and Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board refers the enclosed Long Environmental Assessment Form and map for the above-named subdivision to you for a cost estimate. Also enclosed for your information is the coordination form and correspondence from coordinating agencies. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, y/Jy Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. Coordination Letter Town Trustee Report Robert DeLuca' s Report: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Charles E. Kilduff ' s Report: N.Y.S. Department of Transportation Mohabir Persaud' s Report: N.Y.S. Department of State O C i5 TRUSTEES h�0� pGti John M.Bredemeyer,III,Presidento= t`t SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President E'' x SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L.Bednoski,Jr. '!p 0o Town Hall 1 zt 5 John B.Tuthill 3095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board FROM: John Bof Trustees I M--j Board of TrusteesRE: Proposed minor Subdivision: -Bernice Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3 21Grundbesitzer Corp. - Andrew LettieriSCTM #1000-22-3-22 Andrew Lettieri SCTM #1000-31-5-1. 2 DATE: January 21, 1992 The Southold Town Trustees concur with your classification of the above referenced proposed minor subdivisions as type I actions for being contiguous with our Town Trustee CEA. Additionally, this Board would like to go on record as opposed to the road or bridge or similar structure shown over Town Trustee land between the Andrew Lettieri and Joseph Gazza parcels. As in the case of Wade Vs. the Town Trustees, we are not inclined to permit any exclusive easement over Trustee owned underwater lands and wetlands. This item is not negotiable. The Board discussed this at some length during our January 16 , 1992 work session and will prepare a formal resolution reflecting this consensus should you or the developer( s) request it. The Trustees will, however, not oppose reasonable uses such as catwalk ramp and float assemblies for individual or community use for small vessels or to bridge wetlands for access by foot. Since the wetlands have previously been delineated by the NYSDEC we are asking that Bruce Anderson, our environmental Consultant, confirm their accuracy. Provided the wetlands are properly designated, we may not require an additional natural resource review from Mr. Anderson should your Board retain its consultant for purpose of a review of the LEAF. Owing to the sensitive nature of this area, we would request that all buildings be located greater than 75 ' landward of the accepted wetland line and that the most stringent land use practices be encouraged though C & R' s. This Board will be interested in participating in any scoping session should one be necessary. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. cc: Bruce Anderson COUNTY OF SUFFOLK "r3 Robert J. Gaffney SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Mary E. Hibberd, MD, MPH COMMISSIONER January 24, 1992 Valerie Scopaz,Town Planner Town of Southold, Planning Board Office Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Street -P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 RE: Dam Pond Resubmission (aka: Minor Subdivisions of B. Lettieri, J. Gazza, Gtundbesitzer& Lettieri, & A. Lettieri) SCTM#s: 1000-22-3-20, 1000-22-3-21, 1000-22-3-22, 1000-31-5-1.2 Dear Ms. Scopaz: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)has received your letter of December 24, 1991,regarding the above-referenced application and has no objection to the Southold Town Planning Board's designation as lead agency. Based on the information reviewed, and the overall site location within a designated Critical Environmental Area(Peconic Estuary& Dam Pond),we believe that the magnitude and significance of potential environmental impacts is sufficient to warrant the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). We believe the DEIS process is the most responsible way to assess the potential impacts of the proposed overall site development, and to examine potential alternative actions which could minimize potential negative environmental effects. In our opinion, individual reviews of the five separate minor subdivision proposals would circumvent the comprehensive review requirements and intent of SEQRA. The implementing rules and regulations for SEQRA state clearly that "considering only a part or a segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQRA"[NYCRR: 617.3(k)(1)]. In January of 1988 the applicants involved in these proposals were informed by our agency that owing to the interrelationships of the subject properties, it was requested that the developments be consolidated into one overall project and map (see attached SCDHS letter of 1/13/88). In addition, separate project reviews are also inconsistent with the stated objectives of SEQRA which call for agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication of reFPtA1kTtHJ71t04G �1992 iui COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-3397OWN GRD Letter to Valerie Scopaz •�� January 24, 1992 Page 2 requirements, and which recommend the combination or consolidation of proceedings in the interest of prompt review [NYCRR: 617.3(1)]. Combined review reduces duplication of efforts and provides the benefit of increased alternative design flexibility. Based on our review,we are most concerned with the subject proposal's individual and cumulative effects upon potable water supply,regulated tidal wetlands, coastal wildlife habitat (on and adjacent to the site),public access to water resources, and local visual aesthetics in this highly visible and scenic area. In addition, we submit the following comments for your consideration. I. Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) A.Article 6 Application Status: The SCDHS has received five separate applications for two and three-lot realty subdivisions of overall site. To date, our agency has issued approval for only one 2-lot land division on the overall property.This approval (Minor Map of Andrew Lettieri) issued in 1985, involved the southermnnost portion of the overall site (SCTM#: 1000-31-5-1.2). All of the other applications are currently incomplete. Please be advised that SCDHS subdivision approvals automatically expire if the applicant has not filed a realty subdivision map with the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County within six months of the date of approval of the Department (SCSC,Article VI, Sec.760-602). Absent evidence to the contrary, it does not appear that the minor subdivision of Andrew Lettieri was ever filed with the County Clerk. The unapproved minor subdivision applications which comprise the overall action have remained inactive since 1989 pending additional information from the applicant, and completion of the SEQRA process. In January of 1989 our agency notified one of the applicants (Joseph Gazza)that we would not accept a 1984,Town-issued Negative Declaration for a 2-lot portion of lite overall site as acceptable SEQRA compliance sufficient to warrant action by our agency, on what was then a 4- lot subdivision proposal on the same site. B. Water Quality Concerns: Please be advised that test well data obtained in 1985 from the vicinity of the easternmost subdivision(SCTM#: 1000-22-3-22) indicated high chloride concentrations. Potability of water on this portion of the site has not yet been determined. Additional well sampling data will be required prior to further action. The overall site development map recently coordinated with our agency indicates what appears to be a proposed community water supply system to serve the easternmost subdivision. Our records do not indicate any such proposal before our agency. The DEIS for the overall action should provide Letter to Valerie Scopaz •, January 24, 1992 Page 3 design details, flow calculations, and water quality data for this aspect of the project. In addition, the applicant should make a formal revision to the application before our agency which includes this proposal so a technical review can be undertaken. C. Sanitary Code Provides for Clustered Subdivisions: Article 6 of the SCSC provides for the clustered development of realty subdivisions,in which one or more relatively undersized parcels is designed in such a manner as to allow a substantial unimproved portion of the tract to stand open and uninhabited. D. Lot Size Requirements for Clustered Subdivisions with Private Wells: In the event that the subject proposal is served by private wells,please be advised that lot sizes may be reduced to 20,000 sq ft and conform to the water facilities requirements of Article 6 (providing the project conforms to the appropriate equivalent density, and meets all required setbacks, and separation distances for the installation of subsurface sewage disposal and water supply facilities). Lot size reductions can often provide valuable mitigation for potential natural resources impacts associated with large-lot development. E. SCDHS Compliance Requirements and Jurisdiction: The applicant must comply with the requirements of the SCSC and all relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, test well data, and complete site plan details are essential to the complete review of this project. These considerations are reviewed fully during the SCDHS application review. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval. H. NATURAL RESOURCES A. General Comments: The overall project site is located in a sensitive and scenic area which has been recognized as a Town and County-designated Critical Environmental Area, and as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Orient Harbor Extension) by the New York State Department of State. Staff from the Office of Ecology have conducted a field inspection of the overall project site and believe that approximately two-thirds of the property is valuable as a tract of increasingly scarce coastal habitat. The importance of this site's natural resources value is underscored by its proximity to the adjacent Cove Beach property which contains a significant tract of mature oak woodland. We believe that the transition between the subject site's successional habitat and mature woodlands to the west increase the site's overall terrestrial habitat value by providing vertical and horizontal vegetative diversity and a related diversity of wildlife habitat. It is our understanding that the development design for the Letter to Valerie Scopaz January 24, 1992 Page 4 Cove Beach parcel will provide for meaningful oak woodland protection in the vicinity of the subject parcel's northwestern perimeter. B. Proposed Development Design: The "grid" style lot configuration proposed by the applicant should be redesigned to minimize potential impacts to the site's numerous and sensitive natural resources which include regulated tidal wetlands,Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat resources,visual resources, and limited drinking water supply. In addition, the overall site development will require the expansion of an existing fame road to traverse Town and State-regulated tidal wetlands. Roadway expansion onto the northern portion of the site will likely result in erosion, sedimentation, and possibly the direct elimination of regulated tidal wetlands. In the long term,this roadway will likely chamnel stormwater runoff and its associated contaminants into the wetlands and surface waters of Dann Pond. As designed, the proposed residential lots do not appear to provide for limited clearing restrictions which would help prevent the proliferation of fertilizer-dependant turf and its associated potential impacts on ground and surface waters. We are also concerned that the lack of stringent clearing restrictions will heighten the visual impacts associated with the development of this parcel. Detailed roadway construction and drainage details should be required as part of the DEIS so that potential impacts to the site's natural resources can be responsibly evaluated. Also, a visual impact assessment should be conducted to examine the potential visual resource degradation associated with the proposed action. We are particularly concerned with long-term post- development impacts which could be seen from Main Road (NYS Rte. 25). C. Alternative Cluster Configuration: We encourage the Town to require consideration of the enclosed cluster plan as a development alternative in the DEIS. We believe this alternative offers significant natural resources protection and maintains lot sizes consistent with the surrounding area. This development alternative provides protection for more than 20 acres of undeveloped coastal habitat,eliminates the need for road construction across regulated tidal wetlands, and would preserve the scenic vista which can be seen from Route 25. In addition, this project design would confine development to areas of the site which are least susceptible to coastal erosion hazards and flooding, and which also appear to have better water quality (based on prior sampling data). Letter to Valerie Scopaz January 24, 1992 Page 5 Also,we believe that when the proposed open space is considered in combination with the protected lands of the adjacent Cove Beach property, the overall value of the subject dedication is significantly increased. The Town may wish to consider the possible public benefits of having proposed open space dedications transferred to the Town or a suitable land stewardship organization for long-term protection and limited public access opportunities (small boat launch, interpretive trails, shell and funfishing access,etc.). At a minimum, our agency strongly encourages that protected open space be retained in its natural state, and that no construction,excavation or filling be permitted in these areas. Open space covenants and restrictions should state clearly that such areas are intended for passive(non- motorized)recreational use and that they may not be subsequently converted to active recreational or community use (ball fields, impervious parking,tennis courts etc.) in the future. D.Indigenous Vegetation: Indigenous vegetation should be used wherever possible in the landscaping of this project. Such vegetation is well suited to the on-site soils and can provide valuable mitigation in reclaiming disturbed portions of the site. E Low Impact Recharge Areas and On-Site Soils Protection: In an effort to reduce potential impacts to indigenous vegetation, wildlife habitat, on-site topography and unconsolidated soils,we encourage consideration of recharge areas which require minimal excavation and structural modification. Also,we encourage careful monitoring of any project which requires the creation of large recharge basins, which we believe,have the potential to become unregulated "borrow pits" or"sand mines" during the development phase of a project. F. General Erosion Control Measures: Leaching pools installed along the project's proposed roadway are likely to fill rapidly with unconsolidated sediments during construction phases of the project providing limited long-term, stormwater control benefits. We request that the Town require a clean-out of these facilities during and after the majority of the site's development. Furthermore,we encourage the periodic maintenance of all such facilities on the project site. In order to minimize off-site erosion and siltation, we recornmend the stabilization of all construction access points with a 50 foot long crushed stone bed (mirnhilunn depth of 6 inches), underlain with a commercial filter cloth. Letter to Valerie Scopaz January 24, 1992 Page 6 G. Clearing and Managed Turf Restrictions: We strongly support the imposition of clearing and managed turf restrictions on individual lots which can provide for greater protection of native vegetation,wildlife habitat, and reduce the potential for areas of fertilizer-dependant turf. M. SUMMARY: Based on the material reviewed,we believe that the proposed action will have negative environmental effects of significant magnitude and importance to require the preparation of a DEIS. Only a DEIS can provide for the level of necessary detail required to assess the above-mentioned issues. We believe meaningful discussion of alternative actions which minimize potential negative impacts is essential to this process, and we strongly encourage the Town to require detailed discussion of reasonable alternatives. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2078. Sincerely, Robert S. DeLuca Sr. Environmental Analyst Office of Ecology Enclosures cc: Vito Minei, P.E. Louise Harrison Stephen Costa, P.E. Charles Hamilton,NYSDEC George Hammarth, NYSDEC Mohabir Persuad,NYSDOS Office of the Southold Town Trustees Frank Dowling, SC Planning COUNTY OF SUFFOLK a. Patrick l:, Halnin SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARFIIF. M.D.. M.P.H. CQ---SSIONER > January 13, 1988 Joseph Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quiogue, N.Y. 11959 RE: SLIM# 1000-22-3-21,7.9,20,22 SMM# 1000-31-5-1 Dear Mr.. Gazza: This Department is in receipt of five separate applications for Realty Development involving the above referenced properties. Due to the interrelationship of the properties and applications it is requested that the Developments be consolidated into one overall project and map, for SEQRA review purposes This will facilitate the review and variance process. If You have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. Very truly Yours, Royal R. Reynolds, PE Sr. Public Health Engineer RRR:ljr Bureau of Wastewater Management cc: NYSDEC Southold Town Planning Board Vito Minei Hanmarth, NYSDEC 548- LS V ERMEAD 7 Q 100,'/ 5 L SGUTH(Jl`J q^�dD PL,Pyply,.'.6 Ile, STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 .JAMES A. KLIZLOSKI FRANKLIN E. WHITE REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER January 16, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Planning Board Southhold Planning Board Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southhold, New York 11971 Subdivision SECTMJL_1000-22-3-19 East Marionl Dear Park Dear Mr. Orlowski: es Lx'—2Z �' l ztf�ti c te.�IcL[•�t5/4�1/� We have no project on NY25 in the area, in the next 5 years. We have no comments on the proposed subdivision. Very truly yours, C l mss: G JOHN A. FALOTICO0U Planning & Program Management Director s�°utlar�t��eua�� ._.--- _ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ' • / 5 U(ir *i=11f STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 12231-0001 GAIL S.SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE January 13 , 1991 Valerie Scopaz Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Scopaz : I refer to your correspondence, dated December 24 , 1991, to this office regarding designation of lead agency status for the minor subdivisions of Bernice Lettieri, Joseph Frederick Gazza, Andrew Lettieri and Grundbesitzer Corp. and Andrew Lettieri. This department does not have any objection to the Southold Planning Board assuming lead agency status. We would like to be placed on your mailing list to receive Environmental Impact Statements for those subdivisions when they are prepared so that we can determine their consistency with the State 's Coastal Management Program. Please contact me at (518) 474-6000 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mohabir Persaud Coastal Processes Technical Specialist MP/jtb J• SOUTNOID TOWIV pIANNING BOARD M '10 G PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �� �' g rL ' SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor � � �`� x " � P George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 December 24, 1991 Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond. Bernice Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Dear Mr. Gazza: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at its meeting on Monday, December 23 , 1991. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board continue the environmental process which was started on September 11, 1985. At that time, this proposal was classified as an unlisted action. However, the classification is hereby changed to a Type I action due to the designation of Dam Pond as a Critical Environmental Area by the Town Board of Trustees on November 24, 1987. The Planning Board would like to take lead agency on the coordinated review of this Type I action. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, � �, ✓ /!/S Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. cc: Bernice Lettieri, Applicant h PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 666 SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman U w '� - "' Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward ; 3� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 December 24, 1991 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request for: Proposed Minor Subdivision of Bernice Lettieri Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1 . Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3 . Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal a completed long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Bernice Lettieri West side Dam Pond East Marion, N.Y. SCTM #1000-22-3-20 Requested Action: To subdivide a 3 . 99 acre lot into two building lots. SEQRA Classification: (x) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: Valerie Scopaz ( 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: (x ) 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. (x ) Other. ( See comments below) . Comments: The Planning Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-21 Minor Subdivision of Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Letr_ieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 Minor Subdivision of Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-31-5-1 . 2 The Planning Board' s initial determination is that this proposal, when considered in conjunction with the others, will have a significant environmental impact. cc: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk *Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department *Suffolk County Planning Commission *Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services *N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation - Albany *N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation - Stony Brook (Attn: George Hammarth) *N.Y.S. Department of State (Attn: Mohabir Persaud) *N.Y.S. Department of Transportation * Maps are enclosed for your review r JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA PPj ATTORNEY AT LAW P.Q.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGU E,NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) December 20 , 1991 Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road Southold , New York 11971 Re: Proposed Minor Subdivision at Dam Pond East Marion 1000-022-03-019 ,020 ,021 ,022 & 031-05-1 . 2 Dear Mr. Chairman Orlowski , The above property proposed subdivision has been improperly held in a comatose state by the Planning Board since 3/10/89 due to ill advise that these separate parcels were merged . I appreciate your honesty in admitting this situation in PP2 of your letter to me of 12/18/91 . Based upon this delay and the fact that the five subdivision applications were all filed in 1985 I respectfully request exemption from thea A106-38 E. ( 3 )Section of Southold Code that providesfor a charge of $2 ,000 per lot subdivision fee . An environmental review of Lot 1 . 2 owned by Andrew Lettieri persuant to SEQR was completed by your Board as per resolution Dated 12/18/84 with a negative Declaration having been issued . Your statement that a coordinated review persuant to SEQR was started by your Board on 9/11/85 would be consiA ent with the timing of the subdivision application filing date of August 1985 , however the coordination statement appears to be at odds with the correspondence a part of the record to wit : 1 . DEC letter of 11/16/87 whereby DEC conducted an uncoordinated review. 2 . Town Planning letter of 9/22/88 states that NYS DEC is lead Agency at that time . 3 . DEC letter of 1/9/89 outlines that project is an unlisted action and that Town failed to timely respond to a DEC "Lead Agency Coordination Request" . DEC having completely reviewed the project under SEQR ( Including Archaeological ) and having determined "Negative Declaration" of this unlisted action. I trust under the circumstances of these applications over the past six years that your Board will likewise determine the action to be "unlisted" and issue a negative declaration. Since this lead Agency was DEC and since your Board did not join in a coordinated review after DEC request and with knowledge that a type 1 action makes coordinated review mandatory there is no reasonable choice but to independently conclude this action to be unlisted and declare a negative declaration. nn RR RespeWful t5 JOSEPH r_K, GAZZA , , SOUTHOLD TONIN PLANNING BOARD )l oOg�FFO(�-�O r PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS W SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman d; Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald � P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 December 18, 1991 Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 RE: Proposed Minor Subdivisions located at East Marion on Dam Pond. SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Joseph Frederick Gazza # 1000-22-3-20 Bernice Lettieri # 1000-22-3-21 Joseph Frederick Gazza # 1000-22-3-22 Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri # 1000-31-5-2--.-1 Andrew Lettieri t-2- Dear Mr. Gazza; This is in reply to your letters of November 13th and November 25th in which you responded to questions that affected all of the above-noted applications. These questions had been set forth in a previous letter from this Board dated March 10, 1989. After careful review of these letters and the application files, it appears that the properties in question are not merged. Therefore, the Planning Board will proceed with its review of the applications of which there are five. A coordinated environmental review pursuant to SEQR was started on September 11, 1985 for four of the applications. However, a determination of significance was never made. It also appears that the environmental review of the southernmost lot owned by Andrew Lettieri was not started. In order for the Planning Board to comply with the State law and complete the environmental review, we will need a completed long environmental assessment form for each application. The short forms that were submitted in 1985 are no longer usable due to the designation by the Town Trustees on November 24, 1987 of Dam Pond as a Critical Environmental Area. According to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, all proposals in Critical 1 Environmental Areas must be reviewed as Type I actions. A long environmental assessment form is enclosed. After receiving the completed assessment forms, the Planning Board will continue the coordinated review that was started in 1985. The fee for our consultant' s environmental review services will be sent under separate cover. Because of the length of time that has elapsed, we wish to send each of the coordinating agencies another copy of each subdivision map. It would be helpful if you could send the office eight copies of each of the five subdivision maps, plus eight of the general map that shows all of the applications. It also would be appreciated if you could complete the enclosed application form for the minor subdivision of the remainder of the Lettieri lot (SCTM # 1000-31-5-2. 1) into three lots so that our file is complete. Since you have authored all the recent correspondence on behalf of the separate applications noted above, it has been assumed that you are the designated agent for each application. However, written confirmation of this from each of the applicants would be appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, �! Bennett Orlowski, Jr. �S Chairman Encls. cc: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Andrew and Bernice Lettieri 4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 (516) 751-7900 game Nqqw _____�.— Phomas C. Jorling —Commissioner January 9 1989 iL1 j �UU71;r1�r1 Town of Southold Planning Board6f;020 Town Hall 53095 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Attn: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Re: Dam Pond Subdivision DEC No. 10-87-1200 SCTM No. 1000-22-3-19 thru 22 1000-31-5-1 .2 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am writing in response to your letter of September 22, 1988, and a subsequent telephone conversation between Valerie Scopaz of your office and Robert Greene, the Regional Permit Administrator, concerning the above referenced project. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your letter and telephone inquiries regarding a shift in lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) from DEC to Town of Southold Planning Board. A review of our file indicates that an application for a DEC Tidal Wetlands permit was received by this office on July 9, 1987. I determined that the proposed project was an unlisted action pursuant to the listing of activities in the SEQR regulations, 6NYCRR Part [617. 12, 131; but suspected that the project might be considered a Type 1 action by the Town. A letter was sent to Town Supervisor Murphy on or about August 5, 1987, along with a copy of the DEC application, environ- mental assessment form and preliminary subdivision map. This letter was our standard "Lead Agency Coordination Request" form and indicated that the Department had no objection to the appropriate Town body assuming lead agency responsibilities for the poroject. The letter requested a response within 30 days of the August 5, 1987 date of the coordination letter as per Part [617.6(c)( 1)] . As the 30 day period for establishing lead agency drew to a close with no response from the Town, I telephoned Diane Shultz of the Planning Board office, who seemed to think that the Planning Board would be interested in assuming lead agency for this project. However, no written response was received from the Planning Board until your September 22, 1988 letter. No further action was taken by the Department until November of 1987 when we decided to proceed with an uncoordinated SEQR review as per Part [617.6(d)] , which resulted in our preliminary determination that the project will probably not have a significant effect on the environment. We then proceeded with our review of the project for specific tidal wetland impacts. In late August of 1988, we learned that there is a possibility of significant cultural Bennett Orlowski, Jr. January 9, 1989 Page 2 resources being located on the project site and required a literature search and preliminary archaeological investigation pursuant to the State Historic Preservation Act. This work is on-going and will allow us to make our official determination of significance. With regard to your request for our consent to a change in lead agency from , DEC to Town Planning Board, we feel that our consent is unnecessary. We believe that no actual coordinated SEQR review was achieved because no written response was received to our August 5, 1987 lead agency coordination request within the statutory time frame. We initiated a coordination attempt, which was unsuccessful, so we proceeded with our own uncoordinated SEQR review which will likely result in a negative declaration. This uncoordinated review was started because we regarded this project as an unlisted action, and Part [617.6(d)( 1)(2)(3)] provides for uncoordinated review of unlisted actions and separate determinations of significance from each involved agency. This situation may change if the archaeological work and literature search show that the site contains a prehistoric site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or nominated for inclusion on the National Register. If this situation arises, then we would consider the project a Type 1 action from the new information. Coordinated review would then be mandatory. Please note that Part [617.6(d)(3)] states: "For uncoordinated review of unlisted actions, each involved agency must make its own determination of significance. Each involved agency is considered a lead agency when making its determination of significance. At any time prior to an agency's final decision, that agency's negative declaration may be superseded by a positive declaration issued by any other involved agency." Since our agencies are involved in an uncoordinated review of this action, each agency must make its own, independent determination of signi- ficance. As mentioned above, the Department will probably prepare a negative declaration if tke archaeological work reveals no new information. Town of Southold Planning Board must reach its own determination of significance. A positive declarat- ion by the Planning Board will supersede a negative declaration issued by any other involved agency as well as prohibit involved agencies from reaching their final decisions until after a final environmental impact statement is filed and findings are prepared. We believe that the Planning Board does not need our consent to act as lead agency, and is free to make its determination of significance as it sees fit. I hope this adequately explains the Department 's position on the matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please call at (516) 751-7900. Very truly yours, GWH:jf George W. Hammarth cc: R. Greene Environmental Analyst J.F. Gazza, Esq. file S�EFO(Nl' IllIL0y7 (� FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President c i� j it V L 1988, U TELEPHONE ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President "; « �u (516) 765-1892 JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III O SOUN0LD JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. Ol �b� j PLA?l;fING 3DeftD HENRY P. SMITH BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 November 25, 1988 Joseph F. Gazza, Esq. PO Box 969 - 30 Ogden Lane Quogue, N.Y. 11959 Re: Proposed minor subdivisions, Dam Pond, East Marion, N.Y. Dear Mr. Gazza: The Board has discussed the above mentioned proposed subdivision at their November 17, 1988 meeting and would like you to submit an application for permits for road construction, which will be evaluated by the Trustees. Very truly) yoouurs, C� �j`clG `'• /�rz Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. President / Board of Trustees. FAK:jas CC: Planning Board' Building Dep' t. J New York State Department r Environment p� Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 LS S + t ( 516) 751-7900 — NOU 2 1 1988 � 1V i SUPERVISORSOFF!C,:, To' OF SOUTFIOLD Thomas C. Jorling November 17, 1988 Commissioner Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor Murphy: Thank you for your letter Of October 31, 1988 concerning Dam Pond in the Town of Southold. The Department is aware of the development pressure in this area and shares your concern for this environmentally sensitive project. . The Region I Office is currently in the process of categorizing, evaluating, and ranking in priority order the acquisition nominations received on Long Island. The most sensitive projects are forwarded to the Land Acquisition Project Review Committee, for evaluation against similar projects nominated from across the State. The properties outlined in your letter will undergo this review process to determine the natural resource values of the project. I assure you, your comments and concerns will be considered during this process. Thank you for your dedication to the State' s land acquisition program. Sincerely, r Peter Jr Frank Forester, Stony Brook PJF:sjmr fgar C 765-1801 x O� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE � Z - �' ® Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 November 10, 1988. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Murphy: At our meeting of November 3, 1988, the Open Space Committee ` expressed unanimous endorsement and support to your proposal of October 31, 1988 to the Department of Environmental Conservation to protect the Dam Pond ecosystem by acquisition of adjoining wetlands. We are convinced that transfer of the lead agency status to the Planning Board is a salutary measure. If any of these unique properties is appropriate for open space acquisition, our committee is ready to give such a proposal full consideration. Sincerely, FAR:JW Frederick A. Ross, Chairman Southold Town Open Space Committee cc - Robert Greene, Permit Administrator Arthur Kunz, Acting Director, Suffolk County Planning Department Frank Panek, D.E.C. Southold Town Planning Board Conservation Advisory Committee Board of Trustees Open Space Committee • � r i OCi 3110 ERR ' � FRANCIS J. MUR n SUPERVISOR 0 TOWN HALL, 53095 MAIN ROAD TELEPHONE $OUIHIN BOAR /� P.O. BOX 1179 PLANNING BOARD �'ry01M .1�0 (516) 765.1800 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 ( 1�l I� OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OFSOUTHOLD October 31, 1988 Mr. Harold Berger, Regional Director Department of Environmental Conservation S.U.N.Y., Building 40 Stony Brook, New York 11790 Dear Mr. Berger: At this time, I would like to request of you that portions of the following properties around Dam Pond be placed on the list of possible acquisitions of land under the Environmental Quality Bond Act in Southold Town. SCTM # 1000-22-3-15. 1 1000-22-3-18.3 1000-22-3-19 1000-22-3-20 1000-22-3-21 1000-22-3-22 - 1000-22-3-23.1 1000-23-1-2.2 1000-31-5-1 .2 1000-31-5-6 1000-31-5-7 1000=31-5-10 1000-81-5-26 The Town's main objective in requesting the placement of these properties on the list is to preserve the wetlands surrounding the Pond itself. Therefore, we are not requesting purchase of the entire premises of any of the parcels noted above, but, rather, the fresh and tidal wetlands and a suitable buffer of one hundred feet adjacent to the edge of, the wetlands. Enclosed you will find a tax ,(nap and supporting documentation as to the environmental sensitivity of Dam Pond. The documentation was prepared for the Town by the Office of Ecology of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Further, Robert Greene, Permit Administrator at the DEC's Albany office, has in his possession a draft environmental impact statement for the Mr. Harold Berger Town of Southold Page 2 October 31, 1988 proposed subdivision development known as Cove Beach Estates, which is located on parcels 1000-22-3-15.1 and 1000-22-3-18.3. The Town has also been in contact with Mr. Greene about the proposed subdivision applications on parcels 1000-31-5-1 .2, 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, and 22. On those applications, the Planning Board is requesting the transfer of lead agency status from the DEC to the Planning Board. If additional information or an aerial photograph of the area is needed by your office, please do not hesitate to contact me at 765-1800 (or the Town Planner at 765-1938). Please expedite this evaluation as this parcel is under developmental pressure. In light of this intense development pressure around the pond, the assistance of your office would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, fC'/r.' urphy Southold Town FJM:rbw encs. cc: Richard Ryan Robert Greene, Permit Administrator Arthur Kunz, Acting Director, Suffolk County Planning Department Frank Panek, DEC Southold Town Planning Board Conservation Advisory Committee Board of Trustees Open Space Committee q1, n • • LIST OF PROPERTIES AROUND DAM POND AND THEIR OWNERS 3- SCTM # 1000-22-115. 1 and 18 . 3 Harold Reese & Others 855 Sunrise Highway Lynbrook, New York 11563 1000-22-3-19 Joseph F. Gazza 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 1000-22-3-20 Bernice Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers, New York 10710 1000-22-3-21 Joseph F. Gazza same as above 1000-22-3-22 Grundbesitzer Corp & Ano. same as Gazza address 1000-22-3-23 . 1 Charles S. Gillispie Box 267 East Marion, New York 11939 1000-23-1-2 . 1 Mary Ruth G. Whitehead 6 Stone Tower Lane Barrington, Rhode Island 02806 1000-23-1-2 . 2 Charles S. Gillespie same 1000-31-5-1 . 2 Andrew Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers , New York 10710 1000-31-5-6 Sonja Stein 68 Longridge Road Plandome , New York 11030 1000-31-5-7 Althea C. Reybine East Marion, New York 11939 1000-31-5-10 Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. 216. Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 1000-31-5-26 Edna Brown East Marion, New York 11939 WOUNTY OF SUFFOLK • l Patrick Halpin SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS.M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER March 24, 1988 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Town of Southold Planning Department 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Office of Ecology Field Report of Property at Dam Pond Dear Valerie: I am writing you in reply to your letter of March 14 to Louise Harrison of our office concerning the above-referenced field report. I have enclosed a copy of this report, as per your request. Please note that this field report refers to the property corresponding to the Harold Reese subdivision applica- tion (SCTM: #1000-22-3-15. 1 & 18.3) . The Office of Ecology is currently reviewing applications for the other tax parcels mentioned in your letter ( i .e. SCTM: 7'1000-22-3-19, 20, 21 & 22) . Should we gain further significant natural resources information on these parcels, we will forward it to you. I hope that the enclosed field inspection report is helpful to you in your evaluation of the area for EQBA acquisition. Should you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to call me at 548-3056. MSincerely, Neil R. Giffen Environmental AnalyIIl Bureau of Environmentap) Management Office of Ecology NRG/amf Enc. T COUNTYCENTER TDIw ANO BOARD RrvERLESD VY 119p1 ' O"OUIT Cec`-_ ^.t of Realt. Sa^ icesSL7ZE;lu C �I4�?C:M�''P?L A��L � J� NNING BOARD - =/JJuTl F. D u15PE^ICN fir. pax-7: - _ !y_ror� 7 . Pr^=e- dame: N �p FC R=car 2. Prove- Ces.._ icn: 4 , 3. Lcc r_cn N 1 div I I J.• <__ P n 4. [ca. l (tC.vTvvL_ uol ra n -r,.3 <Ovn) 5. Ta-,% "ac-R = mAK on) (_) : foo - 6. Ae=iai enorO T: 7. USGS Quad- r) ' — 8. Facs== :Map ( acrid) ar i = u 9. Cces the site ad--c= am, P='•:'^_aNa7I or INj',^S^^ o [ vo r A. River (str=eam) or Lake (pend) s l S. T--:Lb no. < .:r,L 1 •.;! c, tr Pcrd no. C. Wate_- Qua- Ciassificaticn: D. WS:�R C:-rrert: E. Fisne_rr_es C :rrerts: 10. Cces the si a ad-vein or ccnrai.•i anv E FS.;vim=� Svc=• A. Are c, ev� . No ❑ Yes C these we-'ands reTu.Lat�? No [„( Regc:iatcr7 Au=^.^ yer_-� s Re C_assi `c- zeranca B. Cc.IrrenrS: 11 . Dces to site ad -oi: or ccntai^. TICALiCG� �- pq ,Nz`Lc, n -Reference Mat-: c�S W'et_'and - u `Yes Q Zcne.$) c �m; 4m. 72. F.E. ?.a.T Ficccpia,z. 13. No ❑ Yes 2 C_assir_ s cat_cn: za cs {�� qg VQ f� r t s are-- an i-rventcr_--d SICaL'IC"-N,T CCAS=-L FIS:-: s Wi 14. Is is area an inve.tcr_ed SIGZgIF-IC. N7. E_1ni^1T: No i ` No [4 'les ❑ w']5 L yes 7=. Is =is area W1e. - Yes r 16. Is t.;s'a_-_. a LMz �i 17. f 'S=.Gi FRCGn l•S U l_ L '6i-�=' No yes Wnat are t <_oi? t_,•ces fcund cZ the site? 78. What is to accrc:c:.:at_ tecta to C`-`me-rizs: �, _ 5rcurc atan on cz.a.sy-=.' 7o. C-FeaC-Undcate= manaceMent Zcre: T Cel=.ant P `--• _ _'^tip Req••..i_ 2i :lr=c _ Is _ simit.-. the P=Z ���d5? No '"� _ - 1 L Yes s 2- —je:3. _ �. sem___. 11 ?r-_. -_ _.. ce_eL•Ia c_= r ec_ac== are—= , e--• i ' Q. �N" Y\' ,.'" 3L_'i0 C'i z= - as _ _mac r �C.�._=_^. Ci :v2'�'•�:r _-- _ - _-- -=5i 73 CM rc "es - �� !' � � T �u�\( •. rte_, '.. 1 T � � 4 +4''• l Y '1 r ----=z__ 8. 2czz= -z, ce_ :gat'-_cc., Cccz -;ze I F_crs zo l n. —T, Gn`�w\��Z yuQ,=i�rzzN• o��Ine.Yv. C-:�.,�,,. T��vSZ� 1 ti� n TC" � bol n .. Rte'fn,,r RJ10. Y V Lw 10. Ecolcaical Fz^.e==: f , / sem':enc Esc c ccen - — - --_-=• _tea_ scace �s,-e 7 ..� cc _1 i 01 uticn ccnm-.cl L edUcson =wi c__=e 11 . Encanca=ed: 12. Threatened: 13. Sceci es of Spee-al Cone ^: 14 . Endangered, tareat=_ned,. rare, er Vulnerable plan z : 15. Re-=e_Lcn Uses: ! fi_iLi-.g L s:-.ell"_sni hi k=q 1 h• .- T bcam.= I�ncne I I t-acoi nc V nacre =-dv ( ✓i urc cHn 16. Is this land post d? 17. Phc=c-= :ic Infc=ticn (pnetocracne_-, n=—cer of _c^:cccs taken, sub-;, ACc—Jticnai U1_C.:ssicn: 18. Q oral w e - '-n`( .�./---��, �C•i,,,,� �� -!-L..Q-GHQ ,,,, ��.�YY... a. PAR'' Tr_ 1 t�Z 5�1� L?`'�'� �:�--�'r�/� cC vu,•i.� b(} cxrr�ri'.vni,?I,�< � 1v�2 T�1�✓` svrr hra, �;r.:.�t ar r..��•n S O� K �v-n a v�-=Yum. �ti�. 1 p � (� !� V�q1 plwr. WY\ ch tnClti+��i Y¢dC Oaf O cI 1 J Cb W-L\ t�4Q� �z.:,•n 5t-;v. � Gli�nr'.,�.�..1 tt%^� �Cv����2.Y- wx Fes_ �-�;•,v;-'.�, � � ti `�^^j� C�,CQ.[J.. 4I�5t^p„� �`. .�.+ r . �Jv�,���Z.� ��JL W(�C✓i R.V� �i.L.�\, � ...L\� t\l�\\",�,�,,�\y , � a., � `'�7.Q^.lin 0.Y�,:J. c,.�..�rr� -��..z Sp'\,..✓�-� T1r-r../= cl. �: O�Z �.�}�, o� '1°.->•- la.ov�-%X •\S C� Valves arc Cc s• (discssicn) 1 is o �1a1�.vT-Ct - 'T('�3./�7�=f �J-� G h,<yn �t.i2:rj�'� J� \/e1� v`A....T-•� A-4 � �' ' `-- \5 (1T�r\a�m.L.•-!�N—w,_ \v\ �•'!V7_ �r".ZLL 1 �.� ��2< �� � � ..L.�e L-. 1v-2Y$-� ' �1.�� E'er V♦v 7+\ \ "r"i�� ��-G.�)�r:_"(..•.�nl `�.•-/\ .J . i .. : -y' ,. • � �S� ��N.�a n�2� �J.L��'���• —To �•� � J .!tel .��� l l'.:� '� '� eu� s .�✓j( Yr.�.....�4. �?n , C,.c'�n��n.- . . hZA�,� .. V 1 , (� V7\an"KSC�i/—'a r � J _^ 1 � I 3. P=7�ar ='.'3?v.L_CR (C15C,I55 •C'•O73.^.L-31 li'::3GL C.:.'Z113z1ve, W1=. resze= LO 4Zlues cu".= azcva! _ 1 --o-L,L '�� �n,t-i �!✓� �/Jl`3 ;i lr? r.:.».;1,[:-\ ::;n;�z Cr-n rT:Z 1- res y i �. .at..... (C.'..LSC"..$9 ^cssi.D],e mir_'ca-Lcn cr.2s.=_Lt:es :c= oro-e=- PJ 5 S��� ^M��`.Cy,j�.`Y\ ti`(\'.Z45�1N�� •1'!,( 2i' r.� L)Vr U�.a/J• � 1"7^i.7'�\ � CJ.."1"v �1 �.J..u_Z•!� �'-r' � � 'S .(l..C�L � �-� �C�-x..�-a 0���..M C��" �Y O�:iii. �.� Q`i o t't G ,1y\ Cr•!'cx-, C� ,¢..SS�7M"_�Q.^('O`�C'�\ � `J2��w.vr�.�-ari�m�l `✓''�-X ��.3- 11._ � �.� Nalre I,�i �i�,1,1,-�. `�y^-cid • -� 1 � ,1.�... Dlatre v P - _ T 'e � � 1 v � \ IPOUNTY OF SUFFOLK s PATRICK G. HALPIN \ SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER March 29, 1988 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11972 RE: Dam Pond Subdivision, Field Inspection SCTM# 1000-22-03-19 through 22 and 1000-31-05-1 Dear Ms. Scopaz: As part of our department' s review of the above-mentioned application, the Office of Ecology has conducted a field inspection of the subject property. I have enclosed a copy of our field inspection report which I hope will be helpful in your site analysis and provide the information you requested in your letter of March 14, 1988. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with natural resources data pertaining to the subject site. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance, plese feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at your convenience. Sincerely, Robert S. DeLuca Biologist Bureau of Environmental Management Office of Ecology RSD/ta EnclosureILI, , II , `OUTWD TOW I ANNING BOARD COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 1 1 ROI 77 77919� F=, - t _ P„dS�dd,�, - f J• Av�__�_�: C T`: y__.-\moi •N OS-- b. 8. r_,s`- 9_ rces = = r SLvazy__ G-__. . �s-ua�T C� L�7T=?nr� ,.. ;. =,i•�_-c �:C C v= cz. rl C. 2_'4ju a C_.___�__ r_C^:G. Ccs= �__.�.. ac-,---,- CT wr_, vim•"_ ..,C I i oo= ii _=2 w2'�_a•:^_ _ _ -L_..._ NSC tl . Cc-25 ?C'Cia Cr c--r. C r yes E/ Zy -SS,b Nc 14. Nc - - = L NTC —. — 17. yr ar ---a sci_ -, - 79. t 7 Cif 7. Cara: 3/Z It L- Ti-ja: 3. Pie'-"= GS•F l/aJ sw !a-ii r J Ces=_ _- _ 1 e=c• ) : ,f/o,P7H: //Af/I• n_/ ,/__,�,,,,�/,(f� ,4_.__i ) �,d / d rOUTH / � r 1 .✓ J ✓ n.ff A 'J' /S /.�' r 1 0 �u /a F d,. C df.�..! I / r / .s'd/ G• .i �s /!� .C,If� ! ) // � �' E wa d/a c✓, P� d csc ncc6 Ac[crr 6. == S.<e (Ve=2C`Ve reSiCrC��co ICC`".^. - —, ., Cf ;:e--_... sic. rsL•c-� �=�_:_s/ 00000 NM 000 +: 00000o0 _ 0000000000000000 H MJ�.000000000000000 oo1 oo00o0000000000°000000000000 o- 00o O° occ0000000000000000000000000'e. i00000000000000OOC0000000oo-0P0000 OG0000000000° 000000 0 C(. - 0000000 -_-- _ — --- 0000, 0000000000QU O �/'... p, "�•.4 '• 0 0000000000 0000000 -. ,{J OOOOOOOOOOOC +,},'-• . °000000000000 0000 0O/4 000 00°000°00°00 '(s Le ✓c�T• - 00 0000°0°0°0oo -- -. .,k 4 000600000000 L N� a io °000000000000°°Oo0 O •v�1y )00 00 0 00000000000 O E7L u £Y '� dYr:O•0 )00 0000-00000 -- -� SS✓✓ p` O .�., H 617Aff� oppO 00 M o �H -j<Imr%a./Af«•rE ouo,00 oA� P4N0 0 •b� ��000000000 Srr -Cduf./Sl../r�iLdFbf� �.y 000°oo-oo �110000000 4V °° cc -- Q�'�il6fo..JL1.ow'r 7. Zs✓ t.ze dpi-` = _ _ Q �fcLs st :ey•) , ce_^-e L cv j y rc yes (Si:cr a . ra : `c aCc-e cr c �.-e, cec at cac=- ccv: /✓r/. .t'rrC:'c ra.r,i,<r/++(�roS A'r 7ZZ•fr6 77Y-rr4. °. Cta=^ra_ca_ u—I-- PA/r.✓f 9/G./ [a/LC �tlo✓ . d'+ Y ��-.�.«:!<, Con....wY 5,c•Jrr taco- 6A�ECd✓ u// fAr� fLeettr,./ r/G:..!(uya7 SA, /-7'All) Sack c�u� /" Acv SAH CTaw � rkQA I Co.4<M�wI STAG Arlo s�+ LCL/LM r��'.,yc� Stl. Ac s[I YY�cy fUM.AL 04. WO d/ted Zo 7e bac f eA f Lel:k oA"AC' zsh 4 10. J„,+.ov —. Pow+�� ��r�„ =,,, _ :z rte----_ s=aca raze 12. / 13. Cr 14 . ....G�IlC�r=^ _�a_�n.=r -, �.._ _ _,. ra==_, or vt:_ae==c_a 15. Fes=-==`oa isZ: ur:c:owr. -•�/ '(•..�!.giro r' H P=R-� -- — Vic-• �;5?=C_'.^,V :�' �_ Ac sveiecliorlovl If C/w me/�nLr�/ � �v/� SUCGGffl/ew/Laver 5,let iJ 6/awrd4d `y A /Lj/{�d Ce/n.e //nn C,�'!�4. -- {men.. �)// 6/1�-iie QJ rr an. y r� lY¢✓nKl/Y...//sear�ti" r7 ^e arca/C22f An c/.fw.�•�rrn,p,,�snj - 1/(e <o^r/al6z<d_. y�/ /C�l:</r U^df fL.r sr�✓6�G.'Ln.� � .ve�J6cI.�. nay� r.,c/%w✓-AaJ Fug/s�,[� <,a-, �s.'/c� 4, ,4 c- -//2 Ve<eJf /andl4 S�Ss'<face./ ia-,d l6Af o7 .e Co e Na f �s/Ak1 0/?ee �/.v z 7X.'f ua..r. �a�d/d d e (rrdf /a �/wd vnd sceo LrbV,Kc.oar<�er z& /c-,,.r.d.,_� {� r, � .r �{,K/ H.aa•A��/ Af .o �: f.�,., ���Ca�6 ,6' 6� �✓l��n�, 6/is./ //// // A Snw// li oe/Crca.A' ar Q y.1tc/1 Y� /rC/ AG /GIlVN / :l� cL[�-- .eP�n,: f /,w.e 68c.-, f//�dso�FciL-.{� >a�v+,:�,/c/� .ecwl y /zu c✓ �o c/ass:/,o d �en<! f/e A.�/'�_evJ-/ a.,,re La /J //e S,'/c. TT,•Y//d�.a d</+w ,v/a J w. ,/l An 4dJ.oco-. { eruv.a /,>.y /,a:c i'�c d 7/Ie Ln:[.f Ate, e/;,- i/J Q/%LJ� Gooa"^CG�//�+ �p /`G I��i•O/. /J�'7� �� /TO/'� ><Cff /A�n e/S�o�(+. {�C '�o6wSl, OJTr'>a/p �� /b.a c/.wy �n d pe4i� ` ViOd L• �Ce / /Mw dq�'eM /lO{/p G.ef YU.y�Ar(+7�e� P/Moi/ (rLG1G�•�o� Uq/�KJ CY ra sK Al �[ICS1/71b�;7 C6/�eGJ� � �4�101 rGf.l 7� s lc aU -OC5 f� y -7 ed G �c ' AT.�/ /.[c•� CA', .4CCd.., .d A L.v.. y ��•�� SY CCQ 3fary f /S'?A C,p //'' ,ted /Z �ri otGJ �✓t I. /�O^1L7:�fJ /�<r A /�FiK/ f.✓ric .OSJ-✓i / .a Sl¢ /L.fSo////1•l .,�i.a•, .fcsfio/f�,�/cy spFi-urr�6 /a J � •f /l i ac. y n O/vi 1, 77� K• ---'-_ A% �- ..,n w, :f no11/• Cad fa .On..,led .,� .wd !.�/if��/ c../ou-,,k./J;:r/vd/Maf/� ..6.L/ /•4 �e S'2 /Y q p a,•/�'"„/ •wda tw a&, 1.aJ. 7X.i Air.o .r/ <.•fre..e,� SG�,,'e AS o'1C /e�ff 76 r/le 7_/l ) � b' .W c T add•la /a /JJ //w fc .! /�!; /o { �(� o cs.f;/f �/ ( s /!.>t r ,$ /aL.Vie, .a,d f� s � c.•-,K.,��.. / s,�,,, lir/ .,�,.... d-�/ yjk^ /dD ^, Sedgy-e-�/•o r,.r, ,a,d C-a J.O'l ,�.,iN l fl T 'Ac J Y- pl— Croce; /�l Pr�ooucl J� f7rof��f �+•°i/ c/..r,�e {'C. w S.in,�4v.� G<�/,-*r3i / Sau_Qs.r.bar'/ � S:1a f� Aid . -Ari- /!f n X"/ T�/oaletf C"' 6C 74 A i���/w0'd, fo,>1 £/cv-4c/ 7�� v. . c�� fas dse sv,I.6Ze f, /. Cluj&-,;v r�/oade d Ute:�1 0, �r�ov y c� c� f��Uscd ivs 7,r br 00- /'��ll 7 � / �/e•s /° /<dccQ nA��/�!,. >/f /aJs Aid r� F/„ �.•+uv� /,Z°//..Ia-.}S JCtY'G�f /"�i•f�(7r, /0 �A.v� f7W Q/ St A-e I_s 2Uc4-1d,, Nan-e 11 �r•�� �S lir / ,�i•4 T_?e �•c+�L�S.� ri Nam �' v 1._e U.-Me ML7: 2 Sl c-.z Came f pp y. ,Al :. .{r ti l: V V Ali J �T t �r.•r �f A� f y �T � \ J al._ k1! ,r , !� , y � li 3� R , 1 � t , ` t f � � \��' �{rl •;y,vf, It1r� 1 , { f,i r �: 10 !, t•r�. ri�R 14'rMyrt ..A. 4 r1 !� �.. •`' Y 5,..a x � \ 1 t � r 11 � l�h }r'r' �1�1 Tr Jr e ,. LA VIX Y ,,,�PPPjf"! ��. { � '!� 1 t���,nl • L �r.� v�`r .��A I-{TE�IA,�.��� HL 1'•-J•w�' � ��� t9 / � � � { . r Ali rx ;!<tr.- 1v '� ' , ? r� i gyp' •r �� �� ; 1 / { 1 r i �r�.`__ .�` q, r x..y�arnr �I..•� r., a,�4�ty � >. � 'Y� 1r;- 3 �_ � ;,ti �i�^�•�i�'r 2.�✓ t r 4 l `1�3� + ^.t;.:, !K(af 1 #JrrR' .�5�' '�K `n v w r !�:� .1>♦F{' 4�Can �nt� �" t r.� , ,� '7'f' ��": .! _ 1.. '__ .. FCS... t,:' tt-\f,.rl � � y. � J F'+�.o.•�—., . / , 4 'i(t J f , '.„'t.'7Fra�� �j,y{�;�7 t �C Y'..�jv��f� ."i�9,;,y.W�1'' !f'._ �,Rryte Y �•",sA."'i rr4 y?1 .. r?a y �.•thFf��+ fr.{ AtN'Z� 7+ •79 !' t � `i`t=td �i•� 'r�"t4P+3 ''�P";� > .wr. �} l,'i f { �� / i�i1�Y v,� x' 'T! � � . 'y���t�; ���1'{.`b,;y�' .y,� �-.• <�: S � � . ♦ t �' » .:, t Fs,M� r.et L '?,�ti,''e+r, flyE.!'•>�. M r ! k} _ v b'Rr* New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 R R (516) 751-7900 D L5 IS D SEP I AM e._ gOUTHOLDTOWN Thomas C. Jorling PUNNING BOARD Commissioner August 31 , 1988 Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. P.O. Box 969 Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Dam Pond Subdivision 10-87-1200 Dear Mr. Gazza: I am writing to update you on the status of the above referenced project. We are in receipt of your recent letter and updated subdivision plat showing the DEC delineated tidal wetland line. Before you proceed with staking the location of building envelopes and the road, we require additional information. We recently learned that the project site is in the vicinity of a known archeological site listed by the New York State Historic Preservation Office. This information combined with the sensitive nature of the area and the scope of the proposal caused the project to be referred to Dr. Michael Cinquino, Arch- eological Consultant to the Department 's Cultural Resources Section. In Dr. Cinquino's opinion, a sensitivity assessment and field survey should be completed for the project area. Any disturbed areas should be clearly documented if excluded from survey. This assessment is based on the factors outlined below: I . New York State site files record archeological remains in the pro- ject vicinity. This indicates a high potential for locating add- itional archeological sites within the proposed project area. 2. The proposed project area has environmental characteristics similar to recorded prehistoric sites. The soil is well drained, the terrain fairly level and a major water source is closely associated. 3. The terrain of the area suggests erosion is moderate. Ground dis- turbance from recent or historic activities appears limited. The relative stability of the soil strata favors the preservation of archeological remains. Recommendations: Dr. Cinquino recommends sensitivity assessment, including historic map research and archeological site file search, to be completed prior to commencement of a field survey. The assessment should be prepared according to the report for Archeological Site/File Literature Search form. Joseph F' r cW'V zzd" Esti. }} August 31, 9�8.0 ` __ Page 2 A field survey should be conducted in a systematic manner by a qualified archeologist for the entire proposed project area. The scope and methodology should be based on the results of the sensitivity assessment. A rationale for the testing should be clearly stated. Any areas of prior disturbance should be clearly documented. Contact Dr. Cinquino for further information on evaluating disturbance. NYSDEC Cultural Resources Section should be notified by telephone at (518) 457-3811 prior to the commencement of the site evaluation level of study (if any cultural resources are located) . Survey results should provide information on boundaries, cultural affiliation and research potential for resources identified. In addition, New York State site forms must be completed for each site discovered (copies attached) . A site form must be completed for any prehistoric or historic artifacts discovered during the project regardless of the significance of the site. The report should be prepared in accordance with the NYSDEC Report of Field Reconnaissance form. The Archeological Site File/Literatue Search form and Field Reconnaissance form are attached and should be submitted together as one report. Two copies of the report should be forwarded upon completion to the NYSDEC Cultural Resource Section - Albany for review and one copy submitted to this office for placement in the application file. Any specific questions regarding the requirements should be directed to Dr. Cinquino at (518) 457-3811 . This information will allow us to proceed with the processing of this applic- ation. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, , 41L", �,"^,t•., r1 George W. Hammarth Environmental Analyst GWH:jf enc. cc ZPfifferling OOUNTY OF SUFFOLK 10 � A3 . Patrick Halpin SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVIo HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER March 1 , 1988 Mr. George W. Hammarth, Environmental Analyst NYSDEC, Division of Regulatory Affairs SUNY at Stony Brook, Building #40 Stony Brook, New York 11794 RE: NYSDECApplication #10-87-1200, Dam Pond Subdivision S.C.T.M. #1000-22-3-19 through 22 and 1000-31-05-1 Dear Mr. Hammarth: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services received your letter of December 9, 1987. Please be advised that our department wishes to participate in coordinated review of the above-referenced application. The Office of Ecology will conduct a field inspection of the subject property as part of our department's review of this proposal . We subsequently will provide your agency and the Town of Southold with our comments and concerns pertaining to the proposed action' s compliance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and its potential impacts on natural resources. We hope you will keep us apprised of the status of the subject application, so our comments can be submitted at the most useful stage of review. Thank you for the opportunity to provide your agency with information pertaining to the review of this application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at your convenience. Sincerely, Robert S. DeLuca Biologist Bureau of Environmental Management Office of Ecology RSD/amf cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town of Southold J O Charles Hamilton, NYSDEC _ ? � COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAO.N.Y. 11901 SOU ^ N SO IVWN PLANNING BOARD OOUNTY OF SUFFOLK 40 � �v Patrick Halpin SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D.. M.P.H. COMMISSIONER March 1 , 1988 Mr. George W. Hammarth, Environmental Analyst NYSDEC, Division of Regulatory Affairs SUNY at Stony Brook, Building #40 Stony Brook, New York 11794 RE: NYSDEC Application #10-87-1200, Dam Pond Subdivision S.C.T.M. #1000-22-3-19 through 22 and 1000-31-05-1 Dear Mr. Hammarth: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services received your letter of December 9, 1987. Please be advised that our department wishes to participate in coordinated review of the above-referenced application. The Office of Ecology will conduct a field inspection of the subject property as part of our department's review of this proposal . We subsequently will provide your agency and the Town of Southold with our comments and concerns pertaining to the proposed action's compliance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and its potential impacts on natural resources. We hope you will keep us apprised of the status of the subject application, so our comments can be submitted at the most useful stage of review. Thank you for the opportunity to provide your agency with information pertaining to the review of this application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at your convenience. Sincerely, Robert S. DeLuca Biologist Bureau of Environmental Management Office of Ecology RSD/amf Valerie CC: Valerie Scopaz, Town of Southold./ ' . y n Charles Hamilton, NYSDEC JIj� — � � COUNTY CENTCR RIVERHEAD,N.Y. 11901 OLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA RECEIVED F BYr sour�cro ruti�,u F�,�11�iuc a0AR0 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1 1�Q7 P.O.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGU I-NEW YORK 1 1959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) SOw,rA.lj -TdwvP�A✓v;✓J �v�'¢ B-� 9 ^ 87 7, Re M SvQ Olvi o j GnzzA Le77"i'r: C� //�� Ar AAM y-o.✓P )5A,f i'i'1 Aia- I O '1 fJtA.- MOA(io M /E M ErOeL� Tl-FO Nye OEC 1_�A RFp✓I ,eR0 /Ny �}A �cA fiTnP M7 ovlFtiALL P0.orotad li� d: v: s ;o y p v.i O ��; Iie✓; J M Af, s C A... -�� f ✓ C'D ,..,✓r c.-h o� f--J(FcP 7-0 70 1-E �e�ontmwx.t. �/�e�ancd.r� Raymond Jacobs, Highway Superintendent, spoke to Joseph Gazza and Frank Cichanowicz regarding the roads within the minor subdivsiions for Gazza and Lettieri at East Marion. Mr. Jacobs advised that the access road will be required to be constructed as a major subdivision road to the specs and that it should be checked out with the Trustees since there is wetland area where the road would be. Filed: Joseph F. Gazza Joseph Gazza (Grundbesitzeri - landowner in German) Bernice Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Lettieri and Grundbesitzer c.VFFQ1Xr P TO TSO HOD SLTFOf,T: NTY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 To: Trustees From: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner RE: Joseph Gazza SCTM# 1000-22-3-(19-22) 35-5-1.2 Date: April 8, 1988 Is there an application pending on the above mentioned property? If so, what is the status? We would also appriciate any comments you might have on this matter. jt RECEVED BY JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA SoUiPCID F" ! BCRRl ATTORNEY AT LAW 1 P.O.Box 969 3 OGOEN LANE QUOGUE.NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) SOvTho�� -7z ✓ 1°�� 5 1��,r1 , B 9 - 87 6, /VIs.aOI✓) (j;AZZ.A A— DAM Oe Ax- rEoARa aotL- T j4-X- /V y ✓ Oe C 1-441 � R F p ✓I �f-0 .SVR vQ N oti T'o P c-o r q- IN f 7- 0- R-rc 4 A r^ P /Vl ° / c /o X. j �� your ^e✓; r. J M Ae• a F /I•,• 7 S CAS �E LP To 67o✓e- �-�-. i ✓ e».✓.✓.�-� o� r,✓: Til ( A PLUk I G"BOA D T OkSOU ; i¢LD SW91: 1" L�HVTY Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 6, 1986 Mr. Joseph Frederick Gazza Attorney at Law 37 Gardiners Lane Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Re: Proposed subdivision of Lettieri and Gazza Dear Mr. Gazza: Please forgive the delay in responding to your correspondence of October 8, 1985 regarding the above mentioned subdivisions. The Planning Board has again reviewed your correspondence and it is the consensus that the proposed road be constructed according to the Town of Southold Highway Specifications for Town Roads. The Board requests a road to these specifications in order to accommodate the prospective traffic and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles for each of the 13 lots which would be created. Very truly yours, �3 CV's fid' �' BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Audei" Wvayfa ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 GARDINERS LANE RLI IA C L7 HAMPTON BAYS,NEW YORK 1 1946 516-728-1686(DAY AND EVENING) r �, :. ,•{ rt October 8 , 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , New York 11971 Re : East Marion at Dam Pond Subdivision of Lettieri and Gazza Dear Board Members , Mr . Lettieri and I would like to respond in writing to your letter to us of September 19 , 1985 pertaining to Right-of Way improvements in connection with our proposed subdivision . It has been our intention since our purchase of the various parcels at Dam Pond , first and foremost , to protect the natural beauty of the property while creating a mini-estate area that will be viewed as one of Southold Town ' s finest areas to live in . Our combined subdivision request provides for thirteen ( 13) lots , total of 35 . 95 acres or an average lot size of 2 . 77 acres each . It is not our intention to develope this area into the maximum number of lots possible but instead , create a secluded- private subdivision with an estate-driveway access system . I have attempted to secure permission to utilize the access roadway , a part of the F©rmerCove Beach Associates parcel since 1978 . I had negotiated with Mr . Otto Uhl , the former owner of the Cove Beach parcel , later the principals of Cove Beach Associates and presently I am negotiating with Mr . William Joel , thru his Attorney , Mr . Irving Alter ( see copy of letter attached) . I am opposed to the creation of two access road systems side by side which will be the result , should your Board require Mr . Lettieri and me to construct a road system at this time in connection with our subdivision request . Mr . Alter has explained to me that his client ' s intentions for the use of the Cove Beach property have not been finalized and several options are being left open . I believe if your Board could approve our subdivision request while precluding the use of our lots for building purposes until the road-access-improvement issue has been finalized , the best interest of planning would be served . I have hope that when Mr . Joel can inspect a map showing how our property is going to be developed , that is approved by your �5 10"AA 9"Clet" 9%r ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 GARDINERs LANE HAMPTON BAYS,NEW YORK 1 1946 516-728-1886(DAY AND EVENING) cont Board , he will consent to allowing us to use his road system in part for proper financial consideration , in order that both our properties will be benefited with more foliage and less black- top . Mr . Lettieri and I would welcome an opportunity to meet with your Board at your convenience to discuss the contents of this letter and our proposed subdivisions . Very truly yours , Jose0b Frederick Gazza c- ,/ ANdrew 1, ti , i cc : file encl . �ade/� 92echAerdc '9a- ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 GARDINERS LANE HAMPTON BAYS,NEW YORK 1 1946 51 G-728-1886(DAY AND EVENING) Tlav 22, 1985. "r. '"illiam .Toe. coo T--ranl: i'anagement Inc . 375 North 'troadway Jnr. icho, clew Yorl; ?e : Wacant lands at ,r)ast 'arion, T1ew York h:ar ir. Joel , Rer;carch that I have conducted at the Suffolk County Clerk ' s Gffi.r_e i.n 1i.rate that on ;Ipri.l 2 , 1985 ,you purchased the Cove nnar.h es Property ah list rarion which said parcel of 7� acre.^ :- is adjacent to land, owned by the undersigned and 1'r. Undrrcr T,(, Uier. i , all as sholon on map photocopy attached hereto. Pur 171rul i_:.; overerolan farm lard of about 35 acres total v:i-th con:;i_ 1craLln 1:ronta;';c on D2Lm Pond. r. Let fieri anal I have for several ,years been attempting• to obtain permission to utilize the Cove T3each rstatcs access road to provide a better access to our property (as shown in nrll, attached ) . ;re have offered to share in the cost of brinrrlrrc in electricity, improving the road and or an outright cash payment for use of the ".',ed " road. rossib-ly a land ex- cham,,,e could be offered for use of this road. Absent any agreement, our only alternative is to construct a road adjacent and parallel to the Cove Beach road. This in my opinion would subtract from both of our properties . I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this matter with you and or ,your attorneys. I an available to I*lcet with ,you at elle property at ,your convenience . Please advise, 272 ( bi dSae ,Joseph Frederick Gazza �.1,. cc : Irving D. ,'Ll.ter, Attorney n- c/n Dreyer and 'Praub 101 Park Ave. i!ew Yorl; City, T:ew York 10173 cc : Philip '?amone cc : Andrew Lettieri >a-ddle ?id,7e Road 48 Cayuga load Poun(I 71idv,1 Tie,.,! `fork 11753 Yonhers, hew York SAN. o _ 2 L.�. 91 M.D60 .n„/.. 11 20 \ .tu 463 AI[I 36 / I V A PAd I Oam Pond \` 1 9 20.4 : 2 /_ AI[ 5.9 A1C) ti till, / \ o _ v S y `FY �ej73 1 \-..�.1[ti\ J 031 .. 8. VAP FOP 1'•'CCL - 2.5 4I[I> 1 '- y f09 cFL rv0 rv0 tfE ^ ` SfE SFC. NO. G3 `5 OpL` 5[C Np py ISl Altl _ 233 \• \� \\ e /� \ .M1� ' •,�] �/\\. \ ` \\1 I.6 AIC1 2]A AI[I � 2 3 A I N � _ 12 13 \ 1 14 2Gnll 4 �� \ \ 1 r .• 42>l[I ]6AIc1 \ a.2 S p \ �IoSAkl p 4.3 ` PLL 2.2A Jy oP 13 a s ' P SFE SIC 11 i]2 PLA�AN IjiiG RQ'A�RD TOA2A O 'SOU, K -LD ain�7 �7 S qL ou Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 19, 1985 Mr. Joseph F. Gazza Attorney at Law 37 Gardiners Lane Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Re: Subdivisions of Joseph Gazza, Bernice Lettieri, Andrew Lettieri, Joseph F. Gazza, and Lettieri and Grundbesitzer Dear Mr. Gazza: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, September 16, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board request that the 50 ' right-of-way throught the above mentioned subdivisions located at East Marion be constructed in compliance with the Town of Southold Highway Specifications and Standard Sheets, (revised and adopted July 30, 1985) . Would you please submit construction plans to the Board, pursuant to the above resolution. The Highway Specifications may be purchased at the Southold Town Clerk' s Office. Upon receipt of the plans, we will schedule this on the next regular Planning Board agenda. Please don' t hesitate to contact our office, if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. , CHA N SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary Raymond Jacobs, Highway Superintendent, spoke to Joseph Gazza and Frank Cichanowicz regarding the roads within the minor subdivsiions for Gazza and Lettieri at East Marion. Mr. Jacobs advised that the access road will be required to be constructed as a major subdivision road to the specs and that it should be checked out with the Trustees since there is wetland area where the road would be. Filed: Joseph F. Gazza Joseph Gazza (Grundbesitzeri - landowner in German) Bernice Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Lettieri and Grundbesitzer �}�J�_ �o a�� class 1,�.�a,✓sl� � P-)(,4cr LGCAT/o,c1 (Dbqa5-&,510N,5 45- x 4o,000 = IG o,(goo IgB,000 sfrwN oN PAP Z(¢, oq7 IwJ�ICh) is �r ? COUNTY OF SUFFOLK OCT 7 a 1985 PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS.M.D.• M.P.H. COMMISSIONER To: To4✓�Of souTrf'D�17 Date /D-3 -sS— /�rl�lr/.r/id6 S 3o9srylis's+/ r�*� sour�o<�� .✓�! //��/. su8�idrs�sd mA aEAA1'« <t'TIi�RI Re:r,* 1�/� -oaa—e3 -.zo Dear, • <' ` We are in receipt of your letter dated Seo 7- //. /985rconcerning the above referenced project. A?1. This Department has no objection to your designation of lead agency status. 2. This Department is in agreement with your initial determination. 3. This Department does not agree with your initial determination. See Comments. 4. Insufficient information is available for technical comments. 5. There is no record of an application to this Department. A more accurate project location is needed. (Suffolk County Tax Map #) �6. This Department has received an application and it is: Complete Incomplete SEE CO,inFt/- Other: 7. It appears that the project can be served by: Sewage Disposal System Sewer System and Treatment Works Subsurface Sewage Disposal System(s) Other: L7 �0\SOU ER 548-3318 RIVERHEAD.N.Y. 11901 7 Water Supply System A Public Water Supply System Individual Water Supply System(s) Other: 8. Comments: The Health Department's primary environmental concern pertaining to development is that the applicant comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code especially Article V and vI, and relevant construction standards for water supply and sanitary sewage disposal . These considerations are to be reviewed completely at the time of application. Full consideration in placement of water supply wells and disposal systems is given to state and town wetland requirements. The Health Department maintains jurisdiction over final location of disposal and well systems and the applicant should not undertake to construct any water supply or disposal system without Health Department approval . Other portions of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code also apply to commercial development such as Article XII. The Lead Agency is requested / to forward a copy of this form to the applicant with its findings. Tice �n�eGvosed �/�cc%u��ea/ 5 To �oyifo��i ?o S•C 14.7:n/.e _-42r iv •/¢Saro� 70 !.T sire , Sc�ffS is gs✓a.T.-;� 7e- !F7— A/C // /esti/T� ir/fKSs�G 7ER/�tT� ;=7 SG'9i{Aelo7'ei-.�..ra7`i� /n/'ie/` 7v ���u/ /'ede:✓ Further comment may be provided upon completion of the application review. Name L✓f.t?fiC' ��„/�L.F/' Phone SS1r-3 7 9� cc,,�FFair T lei;' D S �' � T Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 19 , 1985 Mr. Joseph F. Gazza Attorney at Law 37 Gardiners Lane Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Re: Subdivisions ofJ seph Gazza, Bernice Lettieri, Andrew Lettieri, Joseph F. Gazza, and Lettieri and Grundbesitzer Dear Mr. Gazza: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday, September 16, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board request that the 50 ' right-of-way throught the above mentioned subdivisions located at East Marion be constructed in compliance with the Town of Southold Highway Specifications and Standard Sheets, (revised and adopted July 30, 1985) . Would you please submit construction plans to the Board, pursuant to the above resolution. The Highway Specifications may be purchased at the Southold Town Clerk' s Office. Upon receipt of the plans, we will schedule this on the next regular Planning Board agenda. Please don' t hesitate to contact our office, if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. , CHA N SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary �FFO(k P D T LD cn w S �Ol � � Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 11, 1985 Environmental Analysis Unit DEC, Building 40, Room 219 SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 Gentlemen: Enclosed find a completed Short Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of the map of the subdivision of Bernice Lettieri, located at East Marion, tax map no. 1000-22-3-20. This project is unlisted and an initial determination of nonsignificance has been made. We wish to coordinate this action to confirm our initial determination. May we have your views on this matter. Written comments on this project will be received at this office until September 25, 1985. We shall interpret lack of -response to mean there is no objection by your agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and our agency will assume the status of lead agency. Very truly yours, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc. cc: Department of Health Services -194-164(9184) , J PROIECT I.D.NUMBER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ' DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. Applicant/sponsor 2. Project Name R ER IVI L1 4-45TT IC2i MAP fop, RAFIzNIE� i- Crr; p- 3. Project location: Municipality 'TOL /JJ or Soar- Rot-o County or S%.' lror.K 4. Is proposed action: ® New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration S. Describe project briefly: pRceorEO TWo 4o'T /14 rNO2 SV QQIV IJ'/ON 6. Precise location(road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.or provide map) N/o /VYX 127 25' ON 20.W. 1 90o F�- E/o SrAR X (toAO CA Jr s1AR?pv N.x�. 1000 - 022 - 0 - 020 7. Amount of land affected: Initially 4-' ^'t' acres Ultimately 4"' �' acres 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? ® Yes ❑ No If No,describe briefly 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? ® Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Parklandlopen space ❑ Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permitiapproval.o'4onding, now or ultimately,from any other governmental agency(Feraral,state or local)? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvals -5'-r aLD TewN vIANvi1 3 3.A FO S..Mlk cpm. Ty oir". or H'EALTH SEtivrtC 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type 12. As result of proposed action will existing permitlapproval require modification? ❑ Yes ❑ No IVIA I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE p Applicantisponsor naJJ BFR Ali IfG L0r7/6Ai Date: Signature: A( ? - If the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER PART 11 Environmental '. Itement(To be completed by Agency) A. Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR,Part 617.12? If yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULLILONG FORM EAF. ❑ Yes ❑ No B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR,Part 617.7? If No,a negative declaration may be superceded by another involved action. ❑ Yes ❑ No C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on,to,or arising from the following:(Answers may be handwritten,if legible) C1. Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?Explain briefly: C2. Historic,archeological,visual or aesthetic,or other natural or cultural resources;agricultural districts;or community or neighborhood character?Explain brief) C3. Vegetation or fauna,movement of fish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly. C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly. C6. Secondary,cumulative,or other effects not identified in C1-C6?Explain briefly. -- C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy?Explain briefly. PART III Determination of Significance(To be Completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its(a)setting(i.e. urban or rural),(b) probability of occurring; (c)duration;(d)irreversibility;(e)geographic scope; and(f)magnitude. If necessary, add attachments orreference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL/LONG FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. ❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination: Agency Name Agency Preparees Name Preparer's SignaturefTitle Date TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD -AM) - --- - - - --DIST.-SUB.- - , OWNER STREET VILLAGE LOT I FORMER OWNER N i E ACR. S W TYPE OF BUILDING -- -- RES. I SEAS. VL �,; ; I FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL I DATE REMARKS J ./ ✓ ' i'�l�l JOL3 3? _r i AGE BUILDING CONDITION I NEW NCRMAL BELOW ABOVE !r FARMAcre Value Per Vclue Acre I i -TiAable FRONTAGE ON WATER r �- Woodland _ FRONTAGE ON ROAD — Meadowland DEPTH ---------- -- -- - — House Plot BULKHEAD Total DOCK AUG Name of Insured Policy No. 2'1281-2398 BERNICE LETTIERI Amount of Insurance $ 33 ,000.00 Date of Issue 11/25/81 The estate or interest insured by this policy is fee simplevested in the insured by means of a deed made by Anthony Mastroianni, Public Administrator, Admin-CTA of the Estate of Joseph Boken to the INSURED dated recorded 12/4/81. SCHEDULE "B" 1The following estates, interests, defects, objections to title, liens and Incumbrances andother matters are excepted from the 1llli coverage of this policy: as herein provided. 1. Defects and incumbrances arising or becoming a Ilan after the date of this policy,except P -- 2. Consequences of the exercise and enforcement or attempted enforcement of any govednental, war or police powers over the .JI premises. 3. Any laws, regulations or ordinances(including,but not limited to zoning,building,and Mvironmental protection)as to use,occu- enc p p p p yg mental body,or the effect of any noncom. p y, subdivision or improvement of the remises adopted or imposed by an over, phance with or any violation thereof. 4. Judgments against the insured or estates, interests, defects, objections, liens or i.cumbrances created, suffered, assumed or agreed to, by or with the privily of the insured. I 5Title to any property beyond the lines of the premises,or title fo areas within or9 i his or easements in any abutting streets,roads, . avenues,lanes, ways or waterways, or the right to maintain therein vaults,br.nels,ramps,or any other structure or improvement, unless this policy specifically provides that such titles,rights,or easements are insured. Notwithstanding any provisions in this paragraph to the contrary, this policy, unless otherwise excepted, insrfes the ordinary rights of access and egress belonging to iabutting owners. 6. Title to any personal property, whether the same be attached to sr used in connection with said premises or otherwise. A. Rights of tenants, if any. B. No title is insured to any lart# lyinq below the high water line of Dam Pond (Long Island Sound) as the same now exists or formerly existed. in ons Of C. Rights premisesfnoweorefole of rmerlythe underate of New the watersYofkDam Ponde (Long1island Sound) D. Rights of the Federal Government to enter upon and take possession without compensation of lards now or formerly lying below th4::high water mark of Dam Pond (Long Island Sound) . j E. Riparian rights of others than the insured in and to the waters of Dam Pond (Long Island Sound) as the same adjoins the premises described in Schedule "A" . t SCHEDULE "B"OF THOS POLICY CONSISTS OF SHEET(S). i THE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No. T1281-2398 SCHEDULE "B" (continued) F. Debts against the Estate of Joseph Boken, a/k/a Joe Boken 6 Jal Bukin, deceased but company insures against collection of the Za; described premises. G. New York Estate Tax against Joseph Boken, a/k/a Joe Boken i Jal Bukin, deceased, but company insures against collection of the described premises. H. Federal Estate Tax against Joseph Boken, a/k/a Joe Boken i Jal Bukin, deceased but company insures against collection of the described premises. I. New York Estate Tax against Stella Boken, a/k/a Bukin, deceased but company insures against collection of the described premises. J. Federal Estate Taxi :against Stella Boken, a/k/a Bukin, deceased but company insures against collection of the described premises. K. 1 . vacant land. 2. travelled road running along southerly portion of premises; » ' same also running to premises adjacent on the east and west. As shown on survey by R. Van Tuyl, covering premises and more dated 9/21/81 and subject to any changes since that date. rt ,. ?+J l-i I „I fi' I f` THE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY C `f Policy No. T1 81-2398 SCHEDULE A ` The promises in which the insured hes the estate or interest cowed by this policy li ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate , lying and being at East Marion, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New ' ! York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point marking the southwesterly corner of the here- inafter described premises, said point of beginning, being distance the following nine (9) courses and distances from the point where the easterly side of land now or formerly of Cove Beach Estates, Inc. intersects the northerly side of Main State Road: (1) North 12 degrees 39 minutes West, 242.90 feet; (2) South 75 degrees 53 minutes West, 23.10 feet; (3) North 13 degrees 54 minutes 20 seconds WEst, 387.42 feet; (4) North 12 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds WEst, 598.78 feet; (5) North 14 degrees 55 minutes West, 111.96 feet; (6) North 14 degrees 15 minutes 50 seconds West, 71.14 feet; (7) North 19 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds West, 144 .10 feet; 3.81 ' South 68 degrees 17 minutes 30 seconds East, 312.90 feet; (9) South 60 degrees 24 minutes 50 seconds East, 403.85 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 09 degrees 55 minutes 10 seconds West along now or formerly of Grundbesitzer Corp. , 724.36 feet to other land of Cove Beach Estates, Inc. ; i THENCE along said last mentioned land, the following two (2) courses sIand distances: �1) South 77 degrees 23 minutes 20 seconds East, 153. 38 feet; South 76 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East- 165.44 feet to other -land now or formerly of Grundbesitzer Corp. ; _HENCE South 08 degrees 14 minutes 30 seconds East, along said last '! „Mentioned land, 675.0 feet to Dam Pond; i -i ENCS through Dam Pond, on a tie line of North 84 degrees 27 minutes seconds West, 283.65 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. ,I ,I �I a :I • AUG <R • • APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Southold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) approval of a subdivision plat in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law and the Rules and Regulations of the Southold Town 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 not the owner of record of the land under application, the applicant shall state his interest in said land under application.) 2. The name of the subdivision is to be l6ERaic45 LE 7rioAi' ............................................ . ................................................... .......... ................ ................... 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 Suffolk County Clerk's office as follows: Liber �J ( 1� Pa .NgVr�+h.� .2Yi4 ....... ...... a `� On g Liber ........................ Page ...................... On Liber . ....................... Page On Liber . ...... ................. Page ............. .. ...... Liber ........................ Page ... ............ . ...... On ....... .. .............. ; as devised under the Last Will and Testament of ... ........ .. ...................... .... or as distributee ....................................... ................................. ............................................................... ................................ . 5. The area of the land is ...:4:.. ...... acres. 6. All taxes which are liens on the land at the elate hereof have been paid,exeepi .....,, •••. . . ............ .... .......... .. ...................... ........ .... .. .. .... .................... .... 7. The land is encumbered b A10 A1.8 mortgage (s) as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber . .... ... . . . . . . Page . .. .. . . .. .. .. .... . in original amount of $. .. .. .. ...... . unpaid amount $ ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . held by . . ... .............. ... ..... .... .. .. . address ......... ..... .... . ... ... . . . . . .. .. .. .. ...... .. .............. .... . (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber . .... .... Page . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . ... in original amount of . ........ . . ... unpaid amount $.. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . held by . .. .. .. .. .. ...... ... .. .............. address ......... ....... . . . .. .... . . .. .... . . ........................ .... . . .... . . ........................ .... (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 .S^!�y... So.A-.. Twooll) A-r �'Nown+ or/ Sv0.V Y - .. ........ . .... ........ . . .... . ... . .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .................... . 9. The land lies in the following zoning use districts ..RtS)019ATtAt_ f► —80 ............................. ................................... .................. .................................. . 10. No part of the land lies under water whether tide water, stream, pond water or otherwise, ex- S NaK LI.v� o F OArm YuND ............. 11. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public improvements. 12. The land (dom) (does not) lie in a Water District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is . .. .. ..-!/m.......... .......... ............................. 13. Water mains will be laid by ..... Adef.. .. .... ...... ........ ........ .................. . and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by . .... ...kjj'LCR........................ ...... . and (a) (w* charge will be made for installing said lines. 15. Gas mains will be installed by . ...... NIA.. ...... ... . ...... .. ........................... . and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 16. If streets shown on the plat are claimed by 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 the applicant to be existing public streets in the Town of Southold Highway system, annex Schedule "C" hereto to show same. 18. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land which are not located and shown on the plat. 19. Where the plat shows proposed streets which are extensions of streets on adjoining sub- division maps heretofore filed, there are no reserve strips at the end of the streets on said existing maps at their conjunctions with the proposed streets. 20. In the course of these proceedings, the applicant will offer proof of title as required by Sec. 335 of the Real Property Law. C Ja a jV1 of Te .r fui.,wd Arreclvd 21. Submit a copy of proposed decd for lots shoe;ing all restrictions, covenants, etc. Annex Schedule "D". • w 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will be $,....�... as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at . .....d.. . .. years. The Performance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". Av9u:f Th DATE ..... ......... .. .... 19$ter 13.t• .. c k . ....�... rr i.... ............ . (Name Applicant) (....� � .... ........... . By .. (Signat re a — . 7 STFe-WN...COVC' �>'eu✓eorr N,•Y..... , . ...... .. .. .. ... (Address) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ........ •••• •• •• •• •. •. ss S....+6 Avg v v7 On the ....... . .... day of. ...... . ...... ......., 19A-5:., before the personally came 13f t?•NI C( ...... T( I,tR+•• ....... . . to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that .. 1 ... . executed the same. El KIM Alit KVM NOTARY NIBLIC,Mb M NW Yo* :,^u. . ...... .... Nm.5ZB125A5Qiu"C otary ublic Trac Expires Mreb 94 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ........ . .. ........ ...... .. . ss: 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 . .... .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . of . . . .. .... .. .... ... . ...... .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. ... ...... .. .. . .... . the corporation described in and which executed the furegoin;; instrument: that . ...... .. ... knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation. aurl that . . . .. . . .. . . . signed . .. .... .. . . .. . name thereto by like order. . . . ... . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .................. Notary Public BER&E LETTIERI 7 .3TFUING COVE GREENPORT, NEW YORK A vyr�r � r6 dye 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: I:1ap for Bernice Lettieri 1000-022-03-020 Gentlemen: The following statements are offered for your consideration in the review of the above-mentioned minor subdivision and its referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: (1) No grading, other than foundation excavation for a residential building is proposed. (2) No new roads are proposed and no changes will be made in the grades of the existing roads, improvement of common drive- way within Right of vday area only. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. IrT s truly, notaic eri lee 64 13297 Made the f .. day of Nwwwbw, .invest.ban" ,ad Eigtt h�y,,-.rO»__t__�� NOWT M11 ANTHONY MASTRgANNI, Public AdWnishator of Suffolk Coesty,M Ananinistgerr c.t.e.of the Estate of JOSEPH BOKEN, SR., decetled, jean Me*M(salad at Sufb4 County Center, Riverhead, New York, 11901, Letter,of A&W .Is c.t.a, feed 1 r been issued a him by the Sretopate'9 Court, Suffolk Corny, an NO WAW 4, 19R 1, I 13: 7 d.en& rM l.. Y AMMUNK Pard, N the inn pen, ' r BERMCE LEfTI ERI, raiding at 48 Cayuga Road, Yonkers, New York, 10710, '�.r.,.��,��ekt. Prny Of the erreee pert, wsasssn7Csyr rhrr he party o/ the tins parr. b nrue o/ Y r his power red tltbriry sDaaet>oteerkrapreaeryeemefeeyr,aaem� and .n consideration of THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIX and 00/100($33,306.00) DdW 4vh/ooatY e!'be United S,ates, i paid b7 tae Part y of tam"Cow Part. d6ft eerebY cram red rNrese uao rbr Pinny o/ the secood pen. the halts or ntecomm I and,Dietl forever. Dl$T• 9W that certain plot, Piece or porcel of land, situate, IYing and being of Emt Motion, Town o p00 Southold, Suffolk County, Now York, bounded and described ot follows: ! ST' BEGINNING or a point.ranking the southwstfesl 030 mid point of beginning, being distant the followi Yh, o,f the hwsc inafter deribed PrhPo where the etltarly side of land now or formerl tounses and distances%M the itoint side of Main State Rood: Y of Coots Beach Estates, Inc. intersech the noAherly 0100 (1) North 12 dearest 39 minutes Watt, 242.90 feet; LOE' (21 South 75 degrees 53 minutes West, 23.10 feet; OAOQOO 13) North 13 dearest ec 54 minutes 20 sonds West, 387.42 feet; (4) North 12 dearest 20 minutes 5o second,West, 598.78 feat; (5) North 14 degrees 55 minutes West, 111.96 feet; (6) North 14 degrees 15 minutes 50 seconds Wast, 71,14 Feer; 171 North 19 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds W est, 144,10 feet; st 181 South 68 deare17 minutes 30 second, East, 312.90 feet; 191 South 60 degrees 24 minutes 50 wands East, 403.85 feet; 0)th D Pad, an a tie I�+e of North 09�.,�aet SS inutas tD of 11:3Lf�M/.poi�tor Pfbcabf h4inhiny ` �" a" Wad'*rfwronce RUNNING THENCE North 09 degree, SS d OF C 10 Beach Wort a Gnenrbesi rzr Corp., 2ta leer tl otHnar Hand of Cow Beach Estatq, I long lend now or formerly of i A I TOM CE dwr ooid k*rinllmod hod, WA Val' I a M(t)wwpw Md dltlw (1) Swill 77 donor A w ffaft m um ck be, 133.71 ill, j Rl Swi 70 4/m i!wlrlr 30 mm lb fwe, W6.0 fill R'S*W Iwd nw W hmak of T1tTICE Swth O•doffs U wiwun 30 mom&EW,alwp rAi id lw wwowd Iwtd, 673.0 ID Dir Pard; THEyXE t1oat1 Dw.Pond, on a No li of NoAh 64 dWm 27 minus 10 roonds Wow, for 10 do point at Owe of IEGINNN . TOGETHER with and s Nsd t0 tho f Oh f inpraw and oerm with othws oetow a two (10) { A�haf-+ay RroM1y dttwto m 1M isw. l t 1 , -..,�rino- } n.n^..[+.• :rEr'«w%©,. .-f Ct. ..tar .� - . . _ ... mi'*':, .. .a, . ,-.. -♦ .,or', 4 -+,n ':r I. » 1 - ,... „ i r4'`+',. n, _ r P, iCF ,r .♦ t r.,, .�;« .M > gsn T TIM nf,, � u, w #., tf 'J N• I..p., ,,,, . ,. 4 na'l :� i... a. t.r �, ... . "I' .✓', Y' , a �� E'Akrcl",.3".+"iw erv. •, � J+:, ye er :.a>' 1 �x:-, ... «. .. eXr y .h ,t, "a ,. ". „ r'k,. .r r. .rar ?:,J n•, ry ., : re C f - . rn afF -r...f ,.,... ',-.� ^�d:; r , -r�% '. ,?,� .! ,'� -[ ���y .�. .,.. ,' ,. .,; .;..r , ;'.. _, ,"- ` .:. .�' � ,.�,' . 3.,n'.I ., , ., , .. �.,' h;ivr�„r 1#,,:``1,1;-?G+„ LY. ' ,. ' •' - T3 mom' 7 $ �IKfw�J _ $ sAlJJLi1 GmAm V F --�- H 1B•1 Sqpa 9m - 9noyeL �SEP-IM TANY q 5 TY'RIGAL WE L {4sTALLOf(214 ' TYPICAL 7YP/ CAL e' l s 77'23'20 5.76'/2'3'q E': S+E�T/G.?AN/C LEACH/N6 POOL /F.3.9,91 /a.5,414, '-k aC .il�* � � ls6 :.. \ SeuN /4fi wE+s r`i T190 . - VZ STREET ° /0AV RW ,°p5 7YPICAL Lor LAyoUT 'Fok SEP'Ttc TANK SgLE I°=60o' "1 i z- & POOL S`{5TE/`�I 0 J; Ir., GAzzA CSA 7� O, /,^ 300• • `.' -'d 5 . 5 �D W T�$T H°LE 0 r3on 'iK i, IA t s. ! f1 �e d �hARsy� __ _ moat rt RECEIVED BY e"�--y;'°y= 5— SBUiNBID iBWN PLANNING BOARD °o A AUG 5 1985 o. n/ P OVIAWR— DEVELOP )z- r `^ Q' °•° BERNI6e LET-TIER/ 5o rTT�E �oS OCR 7 sruk Lll� covaw C5PsR / \ CC/b)F477r ivgw 9753 Yogic 7Es7 golf �0 °4D\ RES ver-TwEµ MINOR SUBDIVISION 'b° I ED p el.ev 124, T ”I"J54 BPRNICE LETflE2T bps _LO 0 ` Loan LAN DS .//TVA T� SU8DIv151o/J DATq TOTAL AREA 4 Ac � e 41 Lr'!J�- '�IC /ON _ W!✓OI �J OV/�d1� TOTAL ND. OR LOT$ •L u BUILDIN6 20NE A-80 'I 1O ,e co Co , Y. POSTAL DISTRICT D/ASTRiAcT S T) Q' /'1--SCALE. /OO c7ULY 1965 h Lor / 87000 ,q Of t W «� LAND SVLo7- 2- 67000 6v Of ± 1. 'aK 6AY(ES 0 TNS V'/ATER SVPPLY AND P oA71111 , MFAN�1'glfVE[DAla$.�/✓. QhjR. SEWAGE' Di SPoSAL FACILIT'IE'S _ OF ALL LOTS CDMPLY WIT/{ THE EcwL[ DR.AwN[T STANDARDS AND PEQUIREMENTS CW'rovks^ �A /N76RPOLATtonN REVISED Sf ate Nig way Perml P OF TME TVFFOI K COUNT}/ BOARDND. 2950 +� epOr— go F HEALTH, 1 ��""O ept /#XB2-0192 Rt , 25 or Ncv �] l9OO' I 6dst 17dr/an New Yo'K SUFFOLK CO. TqX MP Alp. FRgNk AWLES °ATE w•IROV[°[Y °RwWINO NVM6ER 1'-Io/ ST-N.Yf Pr ZS boo - 022 - o3 - 020 /✓Y. �e�rY s 2-tAMR- �J E CRYSTALENES 9151 J YI�G ARCHITECTS'STANDARD FORM MADE IN V.6.A. ,1 y :�S«avao 'WAT€R _ 6epAcedrn _L _ T777T - 3 titin ) P AAI ZA1x S Gam HOUSE" ulZ - ---r4� Wif Er - , IO lN- - . 9aoyeL- - - - - - - +SE'PT�C-TAN}(. _ 9qr � TYPICAL WELL INSTALLAMor1 TYPIC-4L 7-yp CAG e• � so°E �EATIC ?tNK LERCXING POOL \\ /53.3$' /65.84• - - - _ LEA Xcllw6Ls \ w �eWELL Q3 MAW 8040 sa+E sl u "A �+ rC p5 R STREET 1�rMAP y ��`s T`(PICAL LOT LAYOUT FOP. SEP-TIC t~ANK zs�r'� y & Pool. SYSTEIM Y. F GAZZA s F. GAll s N <e ry 5 I EIV � ', < lark Tv4 i_ ae sou; i '. r!•:u� r .,,?gip t - r` LET-rrEk! f- ��, - 7 Srglt � a _ aaVE _ - C3RGEnrhyRr - nteve YoRk w� vLTS MIND �/'�j 1 ��''`)� 1 /`tel h - CSra),4.77 953. 1 v As ,� V� ll R 5 Ui../�D IV - c�.eYrzs �f7`f/f1 Tom" Q, { " 1 f4 7owr/oFaaT(>«LO * s+��'; :" t At too 44 G1BF _ . A_RE'AS' '.e x Lor r- 87vao -tet L a++r71 es Je�oP fl�l�lrj �EA�'�e1 �f✓E'��At ct,�sA?4 ,1�L? �� - � T�q�• ATCR SiIPP'LY ANP - � _ '- __ . . _ "' -' _ cjPA 'cjSPeSPIt COMPLY rk-ruS - ANDAROSSARFQ REM -NTS, :. 5f a�e Kzgi way.. Per N r t�F Ty6' S t+ff 6f K favII --oi -_R't' . 25 / Ye2 92, _ Dov ,R� tN1t'et ftoLdTlar.�,r New Vorai R/SBUnr �tity07'r!✓df5_ Atovb f,.�� sfi eF tfr� Z6r*Za�s _FvtX "CaTifXM4/' /!ix - Ft c dGta$-Jf1tY f� QB r - _ .1-741,v XT �'x'?f- _ boo - a 2-a- 03 - 02O � �� *r-- lf�_se� tl - TE .