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.-3-22
THIS 'MINORSUBDIVISION IS FOR ' LOTS ON s ACRES LOCATED ON SCTM# 1000- - z - L. MINOR SUBDIVISION (NO ROAD) Complete application received Pam OK Application reviewed at work session "ro 'W L OK xro. Applicant advised of necessary revisions _ rca L OK Revised submission received limro. ico OK ixro. Sketch plan approval _ -with conditions Lead Agency Coordination <a sI, - 3 SEQRA determination Sent to Fire Commissioner Receipt of firewell location Notification to applicant to include on final map Sent to County Planning Commission ' .` oK P Receipt of County Report I OK Review of SCPC report Draft Covenants and Restrictions received Xro. OK Draft Covenants and Restrictions reviewed Xro. OK Filed Covenants and Restrictions received Receipt of mylars and paper prints with Health approval . Final Public Hearing Approval of subdivision -with conditions Endcr semcnt of subdivision 1416-2 (2187)-7c 617.21 SEC Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review r FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM i 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 Upon 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 he prepared. • A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Nororm Sy6&Virron/ or LANor SITUATE Ar EAST MAA1oAI Name of Action /Doo • Ol'L -07. O'1.t T 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(I fe n totrJp0#siTe er) Date (wr g W91 TOWN1 BO RD i PAA—PROJECT INFORMATION 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 - PRONJAo Svbdiv,J,s,J of L-A,vOS Xt-rvATf /47- 9A Sr MAR.is A/ LOCATION OF ACTION(include Street Address, Municipality and County) -- NIS)O NYS Rr 25 1862 5 J STARS RoAD fcAPT -SvW-ilr to . NYS' NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS ATTORNEY-A'C-LAW P. O. BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE CITYIPO W YORK 11W& STATE ZIP CODE (818)•8838766 NAME OF OWNER(If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE A1v6Ar u 47r v r' 'JOSEPH FRED ( ) ADDRESS 31 P O. BOX 969 S-AT-LAW c%1 1v)A f,n1 !/c OGD /Oi✓�,�, /VI o - o G&"766 . ATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION V /v PROro_'rro S'V& -E�Ivjr of VACA, 7- LAno ,VTo 3 R r,pr riTL L� Y� Ii L 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) iffRUral (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) �o• 3 acres 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) A- acres acres Water Surface Area n acres O acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0 acres G 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? SAIvP Ar GRAVEL a. Soil drainage: NWell drained 100 % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involy d, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS, Land Classification System? 161, acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). C 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes ❑No a. What is depth to bedrock? N• A. (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentac,, of proposed project site with slopes: 1..110% 2 % 1110-15% % ❑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 ENO 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Dyes ENO 8. What is the depth of the water table? �J— �a`(in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? Myes ONO 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? *Yes ONO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑Yes ENO 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) []Yes ®No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or lhWghbrn{ippd ^as `$y','open space or recreation area? ❑Yes NN If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views knoWn,4o-be important to the community? ❑Yes ENO .. .' 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Al• A•. a. Name of Stream and.neme of River4o;which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name __ DAM 000n/1> b. Size (In acres) 30 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Eyes ONO a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? WYes 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 ENO 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: 6"S acres initially; Pip 1 J 61 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 757 - nL 44acres. d. Length of project, in miles: A/A. (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 4/. ,4, %; I. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N• A• proposed A4 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 Ultimately L Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure _ 0 height; 60 width; 960 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 53.61 ft_ (2.0.W. FRoNTA vfi 3 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, ea, etc.) will be. removed from the site? � 0 tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Dyes ONO WN/A a. If yes, for what intend- purpose is the site being reclaimed? Al 1,4 b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Dyes ONO RE `3 �' uF opo - poo RFPULC6 Cvr W"A _MI APrg.V" RvAO, 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? �2 acref 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes ENO 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 9 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N• A. (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 4 month 1988 year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase ( % month t 988 year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑Yes ®NO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Dyes ENO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 12- after project is complete O 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project O 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes ENO 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 SA.J,TAR`I 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes ENO Explain FNm.Ce fo-03f�r r1rT RPT QvOL 100 Pr', FR., rrxi-r,. r, 6'A-fox t3afly 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? '®Yes ENO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑Yes $No 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? ❑Yes ENO e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Dyes ENO a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? Al.A. tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Al.P. years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes ENO 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes ENO 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes ENO 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? MYes ONO If yes , indicate type(s) FLEo1k1C pt.,,,, e.rere 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 2S gallons/day. PkF O wEu).�7 r 'T, A79 (F�'Fx) L_ 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Dyes UNo If Yes, explain 4 25. Approvals Requi Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board Dyes WNo Qty, Town, 141legePlanning Board Eyes ❑No rnrr)oR ./bQD,y,l}on/ i 986 City, Town Zoning Board Dyes ENo Fite, County Health Department Eyes ❑No SAA11- V1 JLQDN1.non/ t 98(m Other Local Agencies ❑Yes ❑No Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ❑No State Agencies DEB N14 Eyes ❑No AA1-r • W- PFR" iT 19£37 Federal Agencies ❑Yes ❑No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or-aewing-decision? byes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit Esubdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Rs•/Yoom"At_ 2 "t-` Z1yy)N6 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Lo-r-r Ark A` 2 04 cd 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? PIJ•r PGS✓T/A I- 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? ig MC C6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? &Yes ❑No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? { axio C•NTrAL 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? 2 tqc rC44 :`, Fr. 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Dyes ENo 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? &Yes ❑No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? &Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes &No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Dyes ❑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. -RX PFafoawD .rv53- ofvl�," MAP rM1E01FEp IrY FV.ANk GAYLif✓ L.S; C,,.rLJ� fa.A. . �l1 8 2 - 1955r w:sl lCt- tie d. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. ApplicantlSpons me 3WRPH Far:orriwk 0A-z74 Date Signature A Title 0AWAV- //1+Na7— z �srtlt"^? �RTIS � W If the action is in thAst. Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessmenGAZZA ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 5 P. Q BOX 969, 5 OGDEN LANE (SMNEW YORK� 1195£ Part 2—PROJEC`MPACTS AND THEIR MAGNIT*E 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 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? WNO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ F-1 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. ❑ ❑ 1:1 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 ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 2. Will there be an effect tt. ...ry unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)IPNO ❑YES k • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 6 1 2 3 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) ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ [I 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: ❑ ❑ Dyes []No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? 'ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El 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 effluentwill be conveye.l off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El 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 ❑ ❑ 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: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 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. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ El 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? ONO DYES 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 ❑ ❑ Dyes []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: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? NINO DYES 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. ❑ ❑ ❑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? RLNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ 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 land resources? Examples that would apply to column 2 OINO DYES • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ❑ ❑Yes ❑No L 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 ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes EJ 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 El 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? J$NO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑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 El No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their 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: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ®NO DYES 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 E-1 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 ANO 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: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No 9 1 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 NNO DYES 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. ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ E-1 Yes ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? WNO DYES 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: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? - !NO 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 routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑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? 49NO 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 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) ' • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes []No gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO 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 ONO DYES 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. ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ El Yes [-]No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑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 impacts) 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 f2'87)-9c 617.21 SEQR -- Appendix B o SWte environmental Quality Review Visual FAF 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? • A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? • State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • The State Forest Preserve? NIA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? N)A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? Nln • 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? ✓IA • A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? NIA • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ®, • County road? 11 El El • State? N4.f Rr 25-- `ij MA1,.i AOAO) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ • Local road? ❑ IF ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 flNo 1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Within r *'A mile *1 mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ Forested ❑ Agricultural N/A ❑ ❑ Suburban residential ❑ Industrial N/A ❑ ❑ Commercial N/A ❑ ❑ Urban N/A ❑ ❑ River, Lake, Pond DAr PU" ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks ,v/A ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ Flat ® ❑ Hilly ❑ IN Mountainous N/A ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: M1/2 mile ❑Yes F-1 No *1 miles ❑Yes ❑No *2 miles ❑Yes ❑No *3 miles ❑Yes ❑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 JAiIJ; AL 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 _. PLANNING BOARD MEMB: O�0 UFFot't, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. . . , .• Q Town Hall, 53095 Main Road .2. G Chairman = P.O. Box 1179 c y` Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM J. CREMERS rn KENNETH L. EDWARDS 0 T Fax (516) 765-3136 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,JR. ��if �� Telephone (516) 765-1938 RICHARD G.WARD �rrzr�r� 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 Spiro44*- Planner pa OgpFFOJ,�CO Taws Hall y� Albert J. Krupski, President hj Gy 53095 Main Road James King,Vice-President cmc P.O.Box 1179 Henry Smith coo x Southold, New York 11971 Artie FosterCP W Ken Poliwoda y� ��� 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 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 . """ Sal ,:• , , , �i'�12111A'rl!!I��' iW APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS • gUFFO�,� rn� Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman =� � 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. H P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora 0 Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins -y o�� ZBA Fax(516) 765-9064 George Horning Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS I I'I' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 9, 1999 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Appl. No. 4619 - Request for Improvements/Fre Access �` ` - �" 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 preparers 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 1%9"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. GOEHRI 3\V D CHAIRMAN APR V Southold Town Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SVFFOtf BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. COG 01"wn Hall, 53095 Main Road Chairman P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM J.CREMERS H Z Fax (516)765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS W GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,JR. G • `F Telephone (516) 765-1938 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, Grundbesi zer Corp., and Lathan Property April 6, 1999 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Town Trustees ool 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 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. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsherger Cc: Melissa Spiro, Town Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, ZBA l Foto' 0,T )Coq-kxy) 'F�4T 1T#,-4'19A124 A44- 0 !N 101 9-x.1 Pr-)tAh t )s c� \It,\ S dr — 7z , 4 ` a MAR 2 2 1999 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, ' A FreddieWachsberger Cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor Bennett Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board Melissa Spiro, Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees ORIENT ASSOC•ION 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 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,Councihnan Town Hall Southold,New York Dear Mr.Muuphy, 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 ofthe 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 Sou tholden at large,as one ofthe"special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens' experience ofplace,and which define for visitors their experience ofthe 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 critical property before it is lost penmanertly to development,but there is clearly little time to lose R would be tragic ifthe Town did not use the means it has been given by the taxpayers for just such a pinnae,and lost a Property which has boon unanimously identified as ofthe moat significant importance to the Town's vistas and environment.The Town mist make a firm commitment now to effect its purchase. Sincerely, Freddie WwAsberger Cc: Supervisor Cochran Melissa Spiro,Town Panner Al Knrpaki, Jr, Cl� own Trustees Gerard Goehrioger Zoning Board of Appeals Bennet Odowsh$oCliahman,plaquing Board . • • MS 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 ry Cc: Supervisor Cochran !o JJ AI Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Bennet Orlowski, Chairman, Planning Board HiQ 2 L �Gg9 Southold Town Planning Board ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT . NY 11957 March 18, 1999 Mr. Albert Kmpski 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 0 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 huther 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. Sincerely, W_5�_,— Freddie Wachsberger Cc: Melissa Spiro, Town Planner Albert Krupski, Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, ZBA 0 ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX282 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 KrupskL Jr., Chairman, Town Trustees ORIENT 1 ssOCIATION BOX 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 • 0 ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 . ORIENT • NY 11957 Much 19,1999 Mr. Brian Murphy,Councihnan Town Hall Southold,New York Dear Mr.Murphy, We urge Southold Town to proceed vigorously to preserve the property around Dam Pond. lts 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 ofthe 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 Southoklers at large, as are of the"special places"which resonate strongly in local citizens' experience ofplace,and which define for visitors their experience ofthe 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 bat permanently to development,but there is clearly little time to lose. H 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 cont now to effect its purchase. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberga Cc: Supervisor Cochran Melissa Spiro,Town Planner Al Knrpski, Jr, Chem,Town Trustees Gerard Goehringer 1Mairman,Zoning Board ofAppeals Bennet Oairman,Plaanimg Board • � ^�nnCCvr /"lam PATRICIA C. MOORE Attomey at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel:(516)765-4330 Fax:(516)765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski g� Secretary March 15, 1999 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold `low'} 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 YOOK 11959 (516)653-5766 (DAY AND Evr NTNG) 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 JOSEPH TDEbTICK GA7, A ANDREW LETTIERI BERNICE LETTIERI CC : Lettieri & Lettieri 48 Cayuga Rd . Yonkers,NY 10710 Patricia C. Moore-Esq. 51020 Southold , New York 0 Ms PATRICIA C. MOORE ACaney 0 Lew 51020 Mena Road Southold,Now Yak 11971 Tel:(S16)765-4330 Fax:(516)765.4643 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidenti.al 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 contf,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: 3 - 17-99 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET C IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL SACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. CLIENT NAME: OPERATOR: MARGARET ID Southold Town Planning Board TO 39t1d 3�Jnov1 53�jI330 rltf' Et'9t`S91'9T5 aS :TT 666T/�T%EO Sent by: ST KIT-'5 94-.5927142 13117/99 10: ' JAV :<e y; ra C H_!0H 1993 13:38 5A165 �a LAW CfF1'_3L. KCF0 Maros 0, less BannetTt Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Town Mill 92005 Main Bona P.O.BWt 1179 Semthold, BY 21971 *as Bust Marion siva more paroml 1110-;1, SCTM #1000-17•3-191 .10,21,21 Dear Chairman Orlowski; 141 are in recaiPt cf Your Latter dated February Ya, 1999, plesee be "Via" that w, the undorei , do not, wish to ie subdivide our five &ore paroels lowtad north of 0" Pond. we raby witwow the O"41Ogiora to subdivide aaai' fira arra parsal Lata toe Leta. The 26011 application is solely for lot eccesS', to the give were single i soparata p&rcel6 owned individually by the undersigned, this action is a SZORA Type 11 action, and does not Involve the Planning Board. The October 26, less latter vas simultaneously submitted to your board when it was submitted to the zoning Board and TrMSteei, this r&s not *an att"Wt to circwwv"t and Sequent the st01u► proeews' as you allege. Ma have no interowt :in Subdividing the five more properties, ass Planning Board applioations have not been pursued in years and we believe that each five more lot Is more desirable as a large estate parcel. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Yary truly yours, ,M 3ciy,d 3.8001.1 53",Id3n F.b9 -y�+L�TS a� IT hFST!L TiE.9 JOSEPH FREDERICK GAllAO ✓v( ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 969 5 OODEN LANe Qvoove,NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND E-ANw0) 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 SEORA 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 Boardapplications 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. very HrulyAyor JOSE GA22A ANDREW hETTIERI BERNICE LETTIERI , .; NHh 1 1 �9 eel Lettieri & Lettieri 48 Cayuga Rd . Southold Tatv;, Yonkers,NY 10710 Planning Board I Patricia C. Moore-Esq. 51020 Southold, New York PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS gU ,�FFO� �� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road BENNETT OL OWSKI,JR. oy� Gy` P.O. Box 1179 Chaiman Southold, New York 11971 WILLIAM J.CREMERS ti Z Fax (516) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS O Telephone(516) 765-1935 GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM,JR. P RICHARD G.WARD 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. ESin Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Zoning Board of Appeals Town Trustees MS PATRICIA C. MOORE �'�� 7 Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New Yuck 11971 Tel:(516)765-4330 Fax:(516)765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary January 28, 1999 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals JAN 29 1999 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Hall Southold Town 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 Planning Board regarding the above properties. The four property owners do not wish to subdivide their individual single and 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 1980'8 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 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(lo+) 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. V�ly�yo�u�rs, Patricia C. Moore cc: Planning Board w/enc. Trustees w/enc. Mr. Gazza (by Fax) Mr. Lettieri -T JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA 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 11971 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, \1\ JOSEPH F E GAZZA Consentedso: A W //IERI tj C-4 BE ICE LETTIERI Off 1-800-877-8881 Fax 1-201-343-1934 Pat Moore Fax: 765-4643 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS S10FOl f • Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. Q�Q CSG B o~� y` P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Southold,New York 11971 WILLIAM J. CREMERS y Z Fax(516) 765-3136 KENNETH L.EDWARDS Dy • Telephone(516) 765-1938 GEORGERITCHIE 'JR. RICHARD G.WARD Q 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 to the above mentioned property. The Planning Board has 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. 0FTTCT 010 BOARD OF APPEALS soz0 olds 1via Yat S3o95 Main Roar - SoutlzoQ -NY 119J1 765-1809 ZRA teC 765-go64 ZBA telefax. p ..�.rxs•s..sr•ssrs•.x•ess�rxarsxss:�s..:�•�.»e.s.s sesr«asr:was MEMORANDUM SEP 21 �yyb TO: Planning Board FROM: Board of Appeals Southold Town DATE: September 22, 19&S 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 nder Article IX, Section 100-91B for religious meeting activities. -Cer---,<�-) Re: Laurel Links Golf Course and Sign 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. r 0 P� PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O.Box 483 Mattituck,New York 11952 Tel:(516)298-5629 Fax:(516)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: I 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 o Joseph Gazza, Esq. Southold Town Planning Boardc,' HAY 3, '996 Southold Town Planning of 2 • December 12, 7994 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 feet 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 Od 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. Ydur 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 Pe 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 laking 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, iq 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. Lettieri, 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 0d 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 SEAR. 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 SEAR 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. Leltied 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. i Mr. W :35 p.m. Anna K. Plock - This major subdivision is for 5 lots on 21.79 acres, located an existing right of way off North Bayview Rd roximately 935 feet east of Reydon ad in Southold. Four of the lots etween 1.7 acres and 2.2 acres in size. The fifth Io ' a reserved area to conveyed to the Peconic Land Trust. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.2. I notice that the attame the applicant is Mr. Lark if you would just come forward for a sec There are several things that ould like to see put on the map. One Id be that the easement for park and recreation-be shown on the map. There' a few other things that we have technically that we want to t on the map. We can approve that, subject to, and so before you go into park and recr on and PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS i Richard G. Ward, Chairman Town Hall,53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham, Jr. P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ' Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald " �"+ a':,;' Fax (516)765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 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 Gazza—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, Valerie Scopoz Town Planner for Richard G. Ward, Chairman enc. TRUSTEES tiFFO<,{ SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President9�4 ��; SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President r� 1' °' R Henry P. Smith o rn John B. Tuthill Town Hall William G. Albertson 53095 Main Road�y � �a� �O fly! P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 1 . t 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 : Ga a/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 0V29 „99 i ( + The OPEN SPACE Council 8a�t P.O.Box 275,Brookhaven, NY 11719 MS Mr. Richard Ward VS 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 Environmental 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 altcrnatiyespTown,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 Pond and its tribuWks associated natural resources and coastal processes 5. Growth inducing aspects including traffic burden to NYS 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, /' 117V Daniel L. Mo �L North Fork Projects Coordinator 4: iI 1V 1 6 ',0-3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard O.Ward,Chairroan Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - _ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road _ - ;� Mark S. McDonald -..__,. P. 0. Boz 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 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. YPLANNING BOARD MEMBERS J - SCOTT G HARRIS Richard G.Ward,chairman > Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. ""� 71� ' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ' Mark S. McDonald ----+. P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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. Si gcerely, // Valerie Sc6pa 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. CRAMER, V �, / , S 0 C I A T E S �a ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS ✓S !�S 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, arles J. Voorhis,CEP,AICP enc: scoping outline 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 �^ m t 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 E. 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 4. Water Supply--ability to meet Article 4 and water quality standards 5. Sanitary Disposal--necessary fill and ability to conform to SCDHS design CRAMER, VQ H SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT ',�G CONSULTANTS �_ Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist 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 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 IT. 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 2'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, VSOCIATES Paget ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marlon-Sabdiwislons SEQRA Scoplog Checklist 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;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 1. Transportation Services a) describe access to the site,main road and internal road circulation CRAMER, V OCIATES Pages ENVIRONMENT`� �IG CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion•Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Checklist b) describe existing 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 - am.and pm.peak hour traffic flow - vehicle mix - source of existing traffic B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Esistiag 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 Z. 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 gL 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 Fuld 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 \\ /4SOCIATES page q ENVIRONMENT '�_ 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 minim, siltation of wetlands and habitat areas and minimi>P erosion of proposed fill areas. " Excavation for basements and sanitary systems should be discussed as related to sal 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 If. ' 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. 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, VOR t SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT �_ �1G 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 caning 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/Fue 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 Identity those adverse environmental effects is Section IV that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section IV. CRAMER, V H SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT , !G CONSULTANTS Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Scoping Cbeckllst 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 II(i.e.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 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. DL 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 , R SOCIATES Pagel ENVIRONMENT`' G CONSULTANTS PPS 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 DEIS 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 , ,i Attachment a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper Scoping list - Cazza Subdivision Page 1 r ACCESS i The fact that the site lacks access must be fully discussed in the DEIS . The DEIS should identify an access clan , both 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 impact , or ^isturb wildlife utilizing Dam Pond? Will the access clan interfere with t fishing or shellfishing opportunities in the Pond? Mitigation measures , buffers , and setbacks to prevent impacts from occurring should be described . CONSTRUCT ! ON The effects of construction ( siltation/erosion) on the wetlands on-site , and in Dam Pond should be fully discussed . The JETS should discuss future or potential development on the adjoining parcel . Cumulative impacts , on the Dam Pond ecosystem, with that aevelopment should be discussed . Describe all measures to mitigate impacts , including erosion control , setbacks and the delineation of building envelopes . APPROVALS The applicant should demonstrate how the prc4ect w ' ccmply with all existing local , county and state laws , including but not ' invited to , Suffolk County Health Codes . All additional permitting agencies including but not limited to Army Corps . DEC, Trustees , and Department of State , should be identified , and compliance with their regulations discussed . LAND USE PLANS The DEIS should discuss this 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 or, 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 . Reccmmendations in Sout:n.old ' s Local 'Waterfront Revitalization Plan should also be discussed . Demonstrate compliance . Scoping '. ist - 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 cent ified. 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 an.a 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 . TERRESTR ! AL AND W ! LDL ! FE List and describe all types of vegetation on-site, include discussion of community types and their value as habitat . List all; soecies of wildlife that may utilize the site , include indigenous and migratory species . include 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 association to Orient Harbor and the Peconic Estuary . Describe wetland values . Discuss the objectives of the Tidal Wetlands regulations and describe compliance . Discuss the known impacts of fertilization and run-off on wet ' ands . Describe measures that will be taken to prevent those .mpacts from 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 will meet those objectives . FLOOD PLAID'' 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 1 . 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 . AlIc 02�� i 9g 9.3a tc 10-eta OL-M' �tfiC /00/L/J7 5 CVfCONS C&,,r .moi-- 7V sT ID t3 __ __ P'�aetka.. Jax�.s icwx. Srwtko-fd, fA OAS" Pates owwcti /a.�t .wrr 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) I. 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 / NG CONSULTANTS 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. CONSTRUCITON 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 E. APPROVALS L 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 sprung 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 I 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 L 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, V RHI FZ/� SOCIATES Page 2 ENVIRONMENT ,firG CONSULTANTS ' � / F Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Seeping Checklist e) 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 . SIVA - 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 wildlifeoccupying 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 OWN ��/��/ CRAMER, VOORHI &'% SOCIATES page 3 r ENVIRONMENTA G 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 e3osting level of use on Main Road—ferry traffic,seasonal traffic a.m.and p.m.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 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 Z 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) descn'be 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 CRAMER, VO RHI �1 SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT q� '?/ 1NG CONSULTANTS Page 4 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 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 sail 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. IV. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section M. 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, VOQRHI &1ASOCIATES Pages ENVIRONMENTAkWX I jiG CONSULTANTS f - . Olt[ Dam Pond,Marion-Subdivisions SEQRA Seeping Checklist L Groundwater a) ensure adequate sanitary design b) maintain permeable areas as 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 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 accts 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 Ioad surface area and significant land disturbance 2. Historic/Archaeological--to be determined based on Section 11. 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 \\\ iii/ CRAMER, VO RHI &1 'SSOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENTFIL� " �LN�iIG CONSULTANTS E 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 1. Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes 2. Clustering a) prole 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 minimising 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 ACITON 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, VOORHICIATES ENVIRONMENTp�e� q ';1�`%` ��G CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS °O ' SCOTT L. HARRIS V� Richard G.Ward, Chairrnan ` w' Supervisor ' nJ George Ritchie Latham,Jr. �! '�'1 \J Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. P.O. Boz 1179 cs _ Mark S. McDonald Southold, New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(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 • 0 S o bF c.E FFO(k ��11�. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS H SCOTT L. HARRIS " r `i*p y Supervisor Richard C. Ward. Chalnnan Q� George 11itchle Letham.Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Ma�Iiotyl Bennett Orlowski,Jr. P.O. Box 117EN Z p Mark S. McDonald Southold, New York 4OR71*4.". Kenneth L. Edwards �' �%'•. � A PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(sts)765j1 82G U Telephone(516)765-1938 October 1 1993 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD , CYN cC' GL r til Joseph F. Gazza o L0 k p c,het5tc �ndraluer +x �� �7�. P.O. Box 969 d� m 3 Ogden Lane _. , Quogue, NY 11959 W C `o Re: Scoping Session for Gazza/Lettieri ; SCTM# 1000-22-3-19 , 20, 21, 22 and 31-5-1. Dear Mr. Gazza: 2 Pursuant to our conversation, a scoping session has been se-c for Thursday, October 28, 1993 at 9: 30 a.m. for the above mentioned subdivision. Please notify your enviroimental 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 yoj 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 immed' ately and the session will be re-scheduled. If you have any questions, please contact the Pla ping Board office at 765-1938. _ Sincerely, ' Gtd, Richard G. Ward Q Chairman v CC: Commissioner - Department of Environmental C nservation" �y 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 h New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of State O �` PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS „b T SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Ward, Chairman , Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. J'� Bennett Orlowski,Jr. �q Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonaldP. O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Bax(516)765- 1823 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 $' 50. 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 Con ervation 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 • i PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ` 4 SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard O. Ward, Chairman .3 -" Supervisor �. George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - V_n� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald -rc.r�" P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE I 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. Date: October 1, 1993 A scoping session has been set for Thursday, Octo er 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, p ease 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 I' :w PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS T SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Ward, Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. _ v Bennett Orlowski,Jr. .if �' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold,New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 14, 1993 Joseph F. Gazza P.O. Box 969 3 Odgen Lane Quogue, NY 11959 Re: Proposed minor subdivision Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-22 Dear Mr. Gazza: The following resolution was adopted by the Southo d 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, RichaE�r IJT�/ Chairman W7 enc. - C y*Frijt r PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Richard G. Ward, Chairman -'r Supervisor George Ritchie Latham,Jr. �g � Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Town Hall.53095 Main Road ; Mark S. McDonald - P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 119 1 Date: June 28, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implements g 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 Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew I ettieri East Marion, New York SEQR Status: Type I Action Project Description: The project which is the subject o this Determination, involves a subdivision of 6.3 acres into three (3) 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 geo&raphic area and will involve common and potentially significant impacts. SCTM Number: 1000-22-3-22 Location: The site consists of 6.3 acres and is located on a western point of Pond, primarily west ofa point 1,1 0.81 feet north of a Suffolk County Control Monument No 10-1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion. • w� Grundbesitzer&Lettieri SEQR Determination Comments: The Planning Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following applications: Minor Subdivision of Andrew attieri SCTM # 1000-31-5-1.2 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Minor Subdivision of Bernice ttieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 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 critei is for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environn iental 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 uniq a habitat and resources associated with Dam Pond. (3) The action(s) will result in impairment of the viability of uniq a habitat areas including overgrown field, tidal wetlands and dunelands. The diversity of habitats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significant ecological impact. The site is surrouded on three sides by Dam Pond and associated wetlands and is an important component of the area habitat continuum and operi space as well as visual resource. (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 Ic ad. 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 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 utili ies and impacts. The viability of the access from the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcel as been questioned by the Town Trustees as this access may require a road crossin over Trustees land -- an action which the Trustees have indicated they are not incli ed to permit. Access to the subject Grundbesitzer & Lettieri piece as proposed req res this wetlands road crossing. (8) An environmental impact statement would permit theproper consideration of generic impacts associated with the combination of the five (5) projects, and allow for reasonable mitigation measures and alternatives to the explored. For Further Information: Page 2 of 3 Grundbesitzer&Lettieri SEQR Determination Contact Person: Richard Ward, Chairman, Plan ing Board Town of Southold 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 Wo f 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 ighway, Hauppauge, NY 11788 NYS Dept. of State, Mohabir Persaud, 162 Washington Ave., Alban , NY 12231-0001 Applicant Page 3 of r• � I j1,t1�F"Ir_� JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA ATTORNEY AT LAW MS P.O. BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE,NEw YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) RC P oaoicd M „vor< ./�{{ a,v�.,w�' A+ O.'4w. tu,.np ,£,o,a' r.w.�:.,✓ �S) Woo . 22 - 3 - 1 9 20 21 2_'2- 4 3-1 - t / /. 2 T r[n.r..r �k crt y//r��.e,A- t+.r+' yu...,. t3o d rf�.a...x Ov�r .•�u,J .Pfz9 RA Oz i* ;p.:—Ar,.J -1.a— .fl+e /1L" r'C rt.i c.ca .i,✓6d-Ivi -:orr / U cj o pAy1 -h, .0 ll.,✓ �1�. �r r. : c LFr� Trs...: -yo r'/✓-� p.z nLfr-r�+++ ^^ PLIa-i f. jk T�r^t 1 r•: IL4- 4oP ✓rte,.-i /lc+,o �q .�/v;,...a h 1 M�rf ✓lAil Ptr r. c ifwA 4, LA Lir�✓;�d )'✓ /�^� Oft ed � I V i i Q "' U, Tel v5 NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattltuck, NY 11952 516- 98-8880 August 4 , 1993 Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Gazza, Let ieri Property Dam Pond, ast 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 oe put at extreme risk. Several of the parcels have depths to groundwater of only 5-6 feet -- resulting in the need for extensi a fill before construction. Sanitary system installation c uld significantly impair both surface and groundwater. The presence of marsh and tidal wetlands on several of the sites requir s setbacks that may preclude building on some of the proposed lot .. a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and qua ity 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 Envi onmental Quality Review Act. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (""-inda Levy NFEC Southold ordinator PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS t nr SCOTTL. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman George Ritchie Latham.Jr. y,`fr�� _ ,S `�.�,.';�' 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 SOLITHOLD 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 Letti ri 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, 6d14� Richard G. Ward 4wS Chairman Southold Town Pla•ng Board 11 0August 9 , 1993 Ayes : Mr. cDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, lMr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Op sed? Motion carried. Determinations : Mr. Ward: Stevens Blu - SCTM# 1000-83-2-8 We' ll hold that one over. Francis B. Rauch & R. Stewa t Rauch - CTM# 1000-9-9-22 . What ' s the ple ure o the Board? Mr. . Orlowski : I make a motion at BE IT RESOLVED that the Sou old T n Planning Board, acting under the State Environme al. Qualit Review Act, assumes lead agency status, and as 1 d agency mak a deter ination of non- significance and gran a Negative Decl ation. Mr. Latham: I ' ll econd that. Mr'. Ward: Mot 'on seconded. All in favor? Ayes : Mr. cDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, r. Ward. Mr. Ward Opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Ward: _Joseph Gazza - This minor subdivisionis 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 Grundbesit er 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 it Southold Town Plan n Board g 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 rema ' n '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 tc 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 directior 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 an ther 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 Plating 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 su mit that in place of these? Mr. Gazza: I won' t say withdraw. I will say imend, 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 , ersonally - I won' t speak for anybody elses vote. I won' t n gotiate 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 hen. . . 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 Plalling 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 t the Board concerning that topic. If they come back to us a month from now and say the funding is not going to be availab e. 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 doe n' 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 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 I Southold Town Placing 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 consultantE to have a report p.repared. . . 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 yo r options and make a decision whether you wish to withdraw thR application that ' s been given a positive declaration or sub it this new application that you will get with the Land Tru t. This forced determination doesn' t put you under a gun or a :ime frame to act, but the Board is in a difficult position b ,r not acting. Mr. Gazza: When the Board acted on the Oyster arm subdivision and you gave that a negative declar tion, it was based on the layout and the plan being so accep able 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, would ' 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 tc say you weren' t time . So, en lstarted that ' s in eclast we 'vekindofsettled that. We 'ren tagrreeing, know you don ' t agree. . . Mr. Gazza : We don' t agree on that. Southold Town Plalging 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, Dut it ' s his time. Mr. Ward: I agree. Mr. McDonald: I make a motion that we hold thi for another 30 days at the request of the applicant. Mr . Orlowski : Second. Southold Town Pl*ing Board 17 0 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, M :. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Let the -ecord show that it ' s for the four applications before us which is Joseph Gazza I , Joseph Gazza II , Bernice Lettieri, Andrew L ttieri . The motion addresses all four applications . Mr. Latham: What about Grundbesitzer? Mr. Ward: Yeah five. It' s five blocks . SITE FLANS Final De erminations : Mr. Ward: inda Ta art - This proposed site lams for a 930 square of retail antiques and decorative ift shop located on Main Road Southold. SCTM# 1000-53-2-?2 Mr. McDonald: M Chairman, I make a ion that BE IT RESOLVED that he Southold own Planning Board, acting under the State Envir mental ality Review Act, established itself as lead agency, d lead agency makes a determination of non-significance and g nts a Negative Declaration. Mr. . Ward: Is there a econd Mr. Orlowski : Se nd. Mr. Ward: Mo on seconded. All in favor? Ayes : Mr. Donald, Mr. Latham, Mr. O lowski, r. Ward. Mr. Wa Opposed? Motion carried. Mr'. McDonald: I 'd like to make a further mo*io . WHEREAS, Linda Taggart is the owner of the prop rty known and designated as Linda Taggart Retail Gifts and An -,\ ues Store, SCTM# 1000-53-2-2 located on Route 25, Greenpor d 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 sae any kind of development done with the Peconic Land Trust on the property that Mr. Gazza discussed with you tonight, whici 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 Chan e, and I would really hope that 30 days from now, or whenever ihe 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 Anning 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 I PE,:I)% IC. 1-1,1D TR.iST TEL IJa . 516 2F7 -1)285 1 '9 DI 2: No C05 Yf' PECONIC LAND TRUST 30]agger:Lam,P.O.Box:08B,Southampton,'VY11%9 _ — — _- - ( 1 5'E131'+511316uE3 C215 Augus; 9, : 99: F:i.-h 2 rd Ward, Chairman Scut;old Town Planning BOE.Td Tcwn of Southold, Town Hall ' 53095 Matin Road S'cuthold, New York 11971 R:I:: Lands of Lettieri and CC arza at Dam Pond, East Marion D;ar :vlr.'Nard: ReA;ently, John Halsey and I met with Joe Gazaa to dis:us s the f ji uro use fid ow ne.•ship of the above referenced property. Mr. Gxrza expr( s :,I an inter:st in looking at alternatives to the full-yield subdivision plan which is carrcntly b ing reviewed :)y the Planning Bosrd. Tho Peconic Land Trwt would be interested in workin,; vi:h the: owners the prupe-ty cn a plan which provides the owners with a means tc rc a 1te thr e,:uity their prope-ty while also protectin;r, the integrity and natural charac :ell of the lan: and surrounding environment. I understand that the Planning Board may be ready mai e i deterru in.r lion ( I' sil;nif cance under SEQRA regulations with zespect to the curt -n :lan, h:)% ver, I we uld likf: to request that you postpone making a decision in tai r.ga.rd 1Por at let st on.e me ntl or until the Peconic Land Trust has had the opportunit,, t r Wi-,w stir lie alb;rn itive s with the owners. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks for your cc n;ideration Sincere I i, II Timolir} 3nf'efd Assistant Diiector CC; Joe Gazza i Pa THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY July 15, 993 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 Nortih}am PO Box 1053 Natural Resource Chair Southold NY 11971 765-5971 15 1993 4' Southold Town Planninsoard 7 Jl$ 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# 1000--?2--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 Grundhesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri. SCPM# 1000--?2--3--21 . Bernice Lettieri -- This minor subdivision i.s 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# 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 2.5, 1900 feet east of Stars Road in East Marion. SCTM# 1000--31--5--1 .2. GYUndbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri -- This minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 6.3 acres and is .located on a westernpoint of Da Pond, primarily west of a point 1,170.81 feet north of a Suffolk County C ntrol Monument No. 10--1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion. SCTMik 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 subdivision that works. at works for the developer and that works for the Town, the Town Trustees and the Department of Environmental Conservation. 1 For this reason, if you would suspend so to speak, the pr cess under SEQRA until such time as we could satisfy the concerns which I'm sure youhave 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 problems resolved, tc get the proper setbacks and the water supplyp 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 Planning•ard 8 Ju 12, 1993 Ile want to follow those footsteps. We want to work with �he Town to correct problems that may exist so that a Positive Declar tion 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 Hoard? Mr. McDonald: I really know where you're coming from, l,,e ause 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 lair. 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 negot ate 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 EQRA, discusses conditional Negative Declaration. Mr. McDonald: Tt's not allowed in a Type 1 action. Only allowed in an un Listed action and you're a Type 1 action. Mr. Gazza: Our subdivision was elevated to Type 1 . It s arted as an unlisted. Tf 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 i to negotiations with them. They came in with an application that had mit gated all the problems up front. So, we didn't get into like you do thi and we' ll do that kind of thing with them. Mr. Gazza: Possibly, if the Hoard 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 Hoard in creating a subdivision that benefits everyone. We're notthere 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, I 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 Planning Wrd 9 JuOl2, 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 meet ing 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 least 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 c eafty going to be 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 submitted 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 eview 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 environme tal review that we could bring back and address in writing, and possibly a couple of week adjournment to do that before a decision would he made. Mr. Ward: Well, the Positive Declaration, the whole purpo e 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. ur advice has been with the Type t action that we can't do that. Mr. McDonald: If you want us to adjourn for us to ask cou sel, we can ask counsel their opinion. Mr. Ward: Not take action tonight, and we'll put it hack on for next caien,lar, 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 giv'ng him copies of the consultants report? Board: No Air. McDonald: Absolutely not. No problem. It's public r_ cord. (Everyone talking) . There's some question about whether we have legal time frames in this in the SEORA. Southold Town Planning rd 10 J012, 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 eting, absolutely. Mr. McDonald: Good. Mr. Gazza: Thank you. SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Mr. Ward: Suffolk County National Bank -- This proposed si e p n is for a canopy and tomated teller machine at the drive up window o this bank, on Rt-79 in Matt tuck. SCTMik 1000--143--3--4.?. What's the ple ure of the Board? Mr. McDonald: Mr. airman, I make a motion that the Southold Town Planning Board, acti under the State Environmental Quali y Review Act establishes itself as ad agency, and as lead agency make a determination of non--significance and rants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Orlowski : Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. Al in favor? i� Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. orIows'c1 Latham, Mr. Edwards Mr. Ward. i Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carri.g�. Mr. McDonald: I'd like to 7ational. a further tion that WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Bank is e owner of he property known and designated as Suffolk County Nati al Bank, CTM# 1000-- 113--3--4.2 located on Ro e 25, Mattituc1c; and t WHEREAS, a formal ap .ication for the approval of th sit plan was submitted on June 11993; and WHEREAS, the So hold Town Planning Board, pursuant to th State Envi.ronmental uallty Review Act, (Article 8) , Park 617, d ared itself lead agency d issued a Negative Declaration on July 17, 1.9 „ and WHEREAS, is site plan was certified by Curtis Horton, Seri or B ilding Inspect on July 7, 1-993; and MIER . S, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Tow of Southold have been met; and now therefore he it Southold Town Plan Board 32 *July 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 98.1.563 acres and the Otto Uhl, Jr. parcel will be 12.4051 acres. SCTM# 1000--22--3--19.1 , 18. 1 & 18."1. 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 back 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 discission 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. 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 he a parcel later. The other parcel is existing and accessed elsewhere. So, there is no change in the parcel. (everyon 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 hack 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 i Southold Town Plan Board 33 Wuly 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 excellelt opportunity since the land owners are both before you on happen chane 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 led Mr. Lettieri and I to believe at our last meeting that upon payment of the environmental review fee3 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 th is 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 th y' both been pending for a long time. Mr. McDonald: You want us to give you the answers to the process 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 PlauRg Board 34 *July 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 i�, what does the Board see as the further process. Mr. McDonald: We haven't made even a determination on ter. Gazza's SEQR, because he's asked us to hold it in abeyance while he pr vides 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 opgning of my conver- sation this evening before the Board, on coordinated prozier access. Now, my neighbor says there is going to be no discussion until bg 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 ne_d 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 simpl this, look, the cost of this thing is enormous. We're anxious to get going w'th the thing as you know. To the extent that the Board comes to us or the T wn Attorneys come to us in the final process and in conjunction with the a provals and says listen will you do us a favor, could you do this instead of doing that? I thin'.t we've evidenced an ongoing desire to be flexible, o the extent that it requires a side--tracking and a further delay in the pros-ss is not something we can afford to do. You want us to be reasonable? Wel7e more than prepared to be reasonable. Mr. Gazza: I'm trying to be reasonable and I think that Iif we pool our efforts we can get two maps approved at the same time. Mr. Kinzler: I don't think, in all fairness, it deserve 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 wa. the major part of holding up my subdivision application and it may become, stumbling block 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 1.2, 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 bad one applicant give access to another applicant and it's never happened. Idon'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 so ething 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. Edward , 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# 1.000--22--3--15.1 & 1.8.3 and Otto Uhl, Jr. , et al is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM# 1000-22-3-18. 1; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to thekState 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 date of this resolution: 1 . Submission of the executed deed for each parcel. Mr. Ward: Is there a second? Southold Town Plan Board 36 Ouly 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 ap roved. 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 su ivision is .for 20 lots on 2.2. acres located in Orient. SCTM#b 1000-13-2-8. 5. I ss the question is, here are you at? Mr. Kinzler: We had a meeting a number of months ago members of the Suffolk County De . of Health. The issue is obviou y water quality. And very frankly, while e applied for a variance fro .he Board and were denied, we believed a still believe that we w ld have n appropriate redress in the courts. at we've done in an ffort to avoid that is to meet with the Board and r resentatives of t e Health Dept. in an effort to achieve a compromise and to ry to u work osome solution At their suggestion we had gone back a had rete ed the existing wells and had found that with some of the wel there ad been changes in water quality, that there's been a dissipation fr e water table of some of the contaminants that previously existe ut that in other locations they still exist. As a result of the initial re_esting we've ecided to drop new wells and to see what water quality is other parts of t e proposed parcel. We're hopeful, and unfortunate the driller is unab to move with the same speed (inaudible) , wit respect to the testing, d not Only the testing but, also with respec to the dropping of a well fo the ter for the pumps for the fire depar ment. We hope to get that accom !shed real quickly. Unfortunately ha s not moving as quickly as we would _ ike and unfortunately we have no con of over it. And we hope to get that d e shortly to go back to the B rd of Health and to hopefully accomplish o e kind of a reasonable co romise in terms of the subdivision. What contemplate the possibility of doing is combining in some cases, lots. in our quality. r or five cases we may take two lots and combine them into one lot f r urposes of complying and perhaps averaging out, if you will, the resp ct! e water i ;rrr�(; �� [x „ y PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman d� �) <,+�` SCOTT L. HARRIS George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Su Pervisor Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald r Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Kenneth L. Edwards P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE 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 Lettie�i Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri Joseph F. Gazza (2) SCTM## 1000-22-3-19, 20, 21, 22 & 315-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: The Planning Board at its July 12, 1993 meeting dec ded 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 notbeable 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, ' '' 04�vvj Richard G. Ward �S Chairman Cc: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Matthew Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney CRAMER, VOORHIS C Environmental & Plannine Cons LETTAOMF 54 N. Country Road Suite 2 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 DATE JOB NO. (516) 331-1455 June 29 1993 ATTENTION TO _. Town of Southold Richard Ward ChairmanPlannin RE'. P.O. Box 1179 Dam Pond @ E. Marion Southo:Ld, NX 11971._.. WE ARE SENDING YOU X 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 ofTG ision projects: Joseph Grundberp. Andrew BerniceJoseph 1 6/25/93 1337 Invoice THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit_-copies for approval > DtFor your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ICAs requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19_ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED ,AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS z jmo I „ I 3 Irr' "f':Jid COPY TO SIGNED: les J.Voorhis CEP AICP WutT2N ( tine_Gram,Mry.01471 n,omee PnO.E TOLL FFEE I$UPBdb] I/enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. s CRAMER, VSOCIATES /V ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 1�5 June 28, 1903 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of EAF for Minor Subdivision located at East Marion on Dam Pond IJ!J i JUN 3 0 Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri ,� SCTM No. 1000-22-3-22 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 b as been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part H LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also at ached. 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 6.3 acres and is located on a western point of Dam Pond, primarily west of a point 1,170.81 feet nor th of a Suffolk County Control Monument No 10-1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion. The proposed subdivision involves dividing the 6.3 acre parcel into three (3) ots -- Lot 1 is 81,000 square feet, Lot 2 is 93,000 square feet and Lot 3 is 100,000 square feet. Lots 1 and 3 have frontage on an access road which forms a cul-de-sac on the western side of the parcel, and runs from the Joseph Frederick Gazza piece to the west. 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 6 percent. The majority of the site has Plymouth loamy sand, with a small area of Deerfield sand on the west side of the site. Subsoils are cha characterized as sand with no impediment to leaching capability except in marsh areas th t are present on the northwest part of the site. The elevation of water beneath the ite is 1-2 feet indicating that the depth to water averages approximately 4 feet on all lots. The site was utilized for agricultural purposes in the past; how ver, atpresent the upland portions of the site are characteristic of an overgrown field and dune vegetated areas. Typical pioneer species have overgrown the s to including Page 1 of 4 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Grundbesitzer&Lettieri Long EAF Review herbaceous weeds, black cherry, red cedar and sumac. In adc ition, the site contains a transition of typical field species as well as dune oriented veg tation including bayberry. The site is utilized by field oriented bird and mam al species, as well as shorebirds. The site has significant wildlife potential due to rue inactivity on the parcel and the nesting and foraging opportunities. The site is an important component of the dune habitat area surrounded by tidal wetlands with nearby marsh. The site is a point and is therefore surrounded by the surface waters and fringing wetlands associates with Dam Pond. The northwestern part of the site shares part of the significant tidal wetlands present on the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcel to the west. All wetlands areas have been delineated and are sub'e 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, an 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 baffected by farming activities as the North Fork Water Supply Plan does not ident fy the area groundwater as having nitrate concentrations in excess of 8 m /1 and aldicarb concentrations in excess of 7 ug/1. The potential for on-site w lls as water supply may be affected by chloride concentrations as a result of underlyiw salty groundwater. The subject use will need to ensure that adequate water suppJ 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, east and south by Dam Pon . To the west the site borders a currently pending subdivision, under the name Joseph Frederick Gazza. This project is pending subdivision review by the Town Planning Board. The subject project is one of five (5) projects pending in the area, and gains access from the abutting lot to the west. The proposed project in itself will result in the loss of open space and field/dune habitat, and could potentially impact significant tidal wetlands on the northwest, north, east and south sides of the parcel. All three Lots will have significant constraints with regard to sanitary system installation due to a depth to groundwater of only 5-6 feet. This could result in significant ground and surface water impairment as well as the need for extensive fill and additional site disturbance. The design and confi&uration of this parcel is particularly important due to the point location and the associated ecological, visual andgroundwater/surface water impacts that development of this parcel would be expected to cause. These impacts are significant on their own; and when considered in the context of the four ( ) additional pending projects, the subject application is expected to have a significar t impact on the environment. The SEQR Regulations contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.15 fo Generic Environmental Impact Statements indicate that, "...a generic E S may be used to assess the environmental effects of: (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 CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT GCONSULTANTS Page 2of4 • • it Grundbesitzer&Lettieri Long EAF Review (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 rIIang 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 h bitat areas including overgrown field,tidal wetlands and dunelands. The diversity of ha 3itats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significant ecological impact. The sil a is surrouded on three sides by Dam Pond and associated wetlands and is an important compol Lent of the area habitat continuum and open space as well as visual resource. (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. Groundwaqe r 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 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 questi ned 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 Grundbesitzer&Lettieri piece as proposed requires this wetlands road crossing. O An environmental impact statement would permit the proper consideration of generic impacts associated with the combination of the five(5)projects,and allow f r 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 twc (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 etermination 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 Declar tion 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. If you are in agreement, I have enclosed a Positive Declaration for your use. If you CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 4 Grundbesitzer&Lettieri Long EAF Review have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this mater, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, 9harles J. oorhis,CEP,AICP CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 4 of 4 SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold I Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Rad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197 Date: June 28, 1993 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmetal 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 Grundbesitzer Corp &Andrew ttieri East Marion, New York SEQR Status: Type I Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a subdivision of 6.3 acresnto three (3) lots. The project site is in a Critical Enviro ental Area and contains wetlands associated with Dam Pond. Four additional subdivision Projects are pending in the same geo&raphic area and will involve common and potentially significant impacts. SCTM Number. 1000-22-3-22 Location: The site consists of 6.3 acres and is located on a western point of Pond, primarily west of a ppoint 1,1 0.81 feet north of a Suffolk County Control Monumen No 10-1243 on NYS Route 25, East Marion. Pagel of 3 Grundbesitzer&Uttieri SEQR Determination Comments: The Planning Board is reviewing this project simultaneously with the following aplications: Minor Subdivision of�Andrew L�ttieri SCTM # 1000-31-5-1.2 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Fre erick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-19 Minor Subdivision of Bernice Le tieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Minor Subdivision of Grundbesi*er Corp. & Andrew Lettieri SCTM# 1000-22-3-22 Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criter a for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Enviromn ntal 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 I Iown 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 and dunelands. The diversity of habitats and the fragmentation and loss of same represents a significar t ecological impact. The site is surrouded on three sides by Dam Pond and associated wetlands and is an important component of the area habitat continuum and open space as well as visual resource. (4) The action(s) may cause impact to the surface waters of Dam and 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 four (41 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 util'i ies and impacts. The viability of the access from the Joseph Frederick Gazza parcel as been questioned by the Town Trustees as this access may require a road crossin over Trustees land -- an action which the Trustees have indicated they are not inc1L' ed to permit. Access to the subject Grundbesitzer & 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: Page 2 of 3 Grundbesitzer&Lettieri SEQR Determination Contact Person: Richard Ward, Chairman, Plai"ng Board Town of Southold 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 Wof Road, Albany, NY 12231 Regional Office-New York State the Department of Enviromnentall Conservation, SUNY @ Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Plannin* 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 i 14,16-2 (2,87)-7c . 617.21 C SEAR 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 is process haslbeen Forderly,intended comprehensive f method e nat re, yet ble ttoapplicants all w introduction and trroduct onagencies of inforrmationassured to fit that a project ordetermination action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project an lits site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts band 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occu from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to oderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be Itigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 i�' impact is actually important. ,used to evaluate whether or not the DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Mrytlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed fer this 'project: part 1 P.art'2 C7P8rt 3 �. Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and,3 if appt prate); and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, i ,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 Ideclaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environme0t, 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.* >(_1C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts t It 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 NoPoi-En 9%)66.✓q ,on/ pF IANox S(ruArE AT EAST Al Name of Action Ua . 011 -OZ Ob7- Name of Lead Agency I. Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency T Rsponsi Officer 91[1i ft 4e Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agencyr) Signature Prepare fegnt�otr pi�fisi�iJe ter) l 993 v Date DEC 19 I9Qi i Pso TOY! Y! I PAF( I—PROJECT INFORM 'ION 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 additional{ 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 PRoPoJ0i Svbdivrr dN of LAOS' r/'rvA'rfi A� EA lIr mARlonJ LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address, Municipality and County) NI SI o NII S' RTr 2 i I e&Z Ft e/0 STARS' RpADcrA.r,- AAA4,l ,-/ _Svgs ,Ik tom , ,V _ys NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE 10 8 l ) ADDRESS A't' OTFiI YTOFjl! W P. O. ]BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE CITY/PO ( o K {M STATE ZIP CODE NAME OF OWNER(If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE AArozru 47T*cr : 'JOSEPH FRED MA ADDRESS ,(' P. O, BOX l!NL -AT-LAW A 4.41 Gc 5 0GL EN r1b AF CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION n I RC PUltro S",& -DH/,Via.0 of VACANT LA�o "VTO Rk r,OlNT4PL LU'T S &Z4F5 /l Wt 18/, 0010 40 Ow" *AS 000 SQ•PT. is *V 44 If✓VrAM &;04d"A#4WJW o A" 4AO ZS B6W 1040MV&D i/WJ►l JW- i eomf y po ov Al OTA" SWWVa/&*= /,v VX ,fir 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) SRural (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 6. 3 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested 0 acres O acres Agricultural (Includes orchae&d trotiland, pasture, etL) O acres O acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) yt acres tV` acres Water Surface Area n acres O acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0 acres Q 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? .SfWO A� GRAVEL' • Qi�M1/SAMW a. Soil drainage: DWell drained —AW�% of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involyf I how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? Xh. acres. (See 1 NYCR�R 337r0). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on ;project site?' QYes .ppvo a. What is depth to bedrock? N A• "WAin fceT!) , 2 5. Approximate PercentT,of pro Pa project site with slopes: C-10% _ % ❑10-15% 2 015% 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? ❑Yes ®No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Regis of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes Ill B. What is the depth of the water table?-! A (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? WYes 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 isidea i ied as threatened or endangered? ❑Yes ONO According to Identify each species Ill 4" ctnkis 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., Cliffs,idunes, other geological formations) ❑Yes ®No Describe 13. Is the project site Presently used by the community or neighborhood as ❑Yes pan. open space or recreation area? ONO If yes, explain �" I� -.. 'i' 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the con p}nunity? Oyes ®No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Al A. a. Name of Stream and.name of River to which it is tributary j-h 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. NameDAm Po,.lOPo,.iO b. Silo (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ONO a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? uYes ON b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? &Yes �No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture',, and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes0 y✓... contiguous to a Critical Environmental Areo designated pursuant to Article 8 19. Is the site located in or substantiall of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ,yes ONO 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ' C]Yes ®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 _ acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 6, 3 acres initially; � -7 acres ultimately. e. Project acreage to remain undeveloped s,t` °Fdacres. d. Length of project, in miles: Al A. (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed - A. 0 V f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing A A. ro posed A/ P f • g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour '1 - 3 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple FamijV Condominium Initially O Ultimately is Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 30 h:Ti� w�dth; 60 length. I. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? +,B.bz O.W. ll GE 3 2. How much natural material: rock, eaim, etc.) will be removed fror. pie site? - U tons/cubic vards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑Yes ONO KN/A Ir/rW/S ( Nr®sL+R a. If yes, for what intend_.: purpose is the site being reclaimed? A] 114 R� '1'UO.wy of orJ :-/w•• wo+� b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ONO RSOui,nr r w,o APrRavko Rano. c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑Yes ONO 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs,'ground covers) will be removed from site? �� acrej. S. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes ONO 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 9 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi phased; a. Total numller of-phaos anticipated N• A• (nwrnber). 3 b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 & month � (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month t d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes ®No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑Yes INNo 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? ❑Yes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged S%�^rITARYj 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved.? ®Yes ❑No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes ONO Explain FrVm RC Iaa Tr-r J'6T KAO, 0VC- Ice RL.M P G �vA rFti r3v 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? fffiYes ONO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Dyes ONO 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 SQU72MIA 6AUd / *Z ; location AMTU 'K d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑Yes ONO e. If Yes, explain — — 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? [--]Yes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N A. tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? n/.n, years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes ENO 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes RNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes 43No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Wes ONO If yes , indicate type(s) r=L&IAt L Faits �11-ro _ 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 1S gallonslminute. - 300 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 2S ~ gallons/day. P0a O �j��r. 24. Does project involve Local, State or rederal funding? ❑Yes ENO `Q0 &' If Yes, explain -- 4 25. Approvals Requ% • t}' 'l Submittal pc Date City, Town, Village Board Dyes WNo 6iEy, Town, Y11age Planning Board Eyes ❑No �«= ✓Lt;D w�1,,,,� 1 1306 City, Town Zoning Board Dyes ®No 'EitT, County Health Department Eyes ❑No -1'A^'I"el 4 -�"v(4Div�•non/ t �"� Other Local Agencies Dyes ❑No Other Regional Agencies Dyes [-]No State Agencies 06c N`f-rYes ❑No Ny r W_ PrF�kAni r 987 1 Federal Agencies Dyes ❑No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning ec-aerwl9t—decision? Eyes (JNo If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit Osubdivision ❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑otor 2. What is the zoning class ification(s)of the site? Rtz.0p0..rr,AL ,Z A"-` 'I ''..Z�,• i✓/n/Gj 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as peml'itted by the present zoning? _ 3 Lo TJ Ar 24,4- r 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Ag-',05NTiAL 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? _'An .c- 6- EG Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? INYes ❑No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/, Mile radius of proposed action? RIZ-/'10 FN riAL 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/ mile? Byes ❑No 9 If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how manylots are propo�ed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 2 l0c �f�t �i 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer water districts? Dyes ®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? i.Yes ❑No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly abovje�, present levels? Dyes 8No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additionali t,raffic? Dyes ❑No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. `f there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measu @s which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. -FFX t9R:.Po�n .rvt{_ nw .ron� mAlo rxifeAl �y E. Verification 1985 I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Spons me itN'ItM4 r-'aaDSArck G,gZZ/7 Date /-2 '/9 9/ Signature _ Title OtOvfx If the action is in the st Arca, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal! with this assessment. J s�H FREDERICK GAZZA ssessment Form before proceeding ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 5 P. Q BOX 969, 5 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE, NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766 Part 2=PROJECT MPACTS AND THEIP MAGNITr E Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) ,fn,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 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 prof ct s I oe? ANO 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. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑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 ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑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 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 2. Will there be an effect t:. _..ry u:,que or unusual land forms found on the site? (ie., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO OYES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 6 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential ,Can Impact Be 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Moderate Large Mitigated By (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Lam L) Impact Impact Project Change �SY Examples that would apply to column 2 ANO ES � • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Cl ❑ 1:1 Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. 1� 13 ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: d ❑Yes ❑No .- 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? ENO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 100o increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑', ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. E� ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: 01 ❑ Dyes ❑No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? 'FNO S Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ( ❑ Dyes ❑No • 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 q ❑ 11 Yes ❑No gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water d ❑ ❑Yes []No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Liquid effluent will be conveye-I off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ED Yes []No not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑i ❑ day. ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will likelv cause siltation or other discharge into an F-1: El ❑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 ❑'i ❑ products greater than 1,100 gallons. Oyes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in'areas without water ❑', ❑ and/or sewer services. 11 Yes ❑No • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ' ❑ require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage ❑Yes ❑No facilities. • Other impacts: ❑ / #4 ❑Yes ❑No 1 X 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ENO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 7 1 \ 2 3 amall to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change t • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ` • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality?, IRNO '❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ []Yes ONO IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered ��// species? ONO JOV�S Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Application of pesticide or 6rbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO than for agricultural purposes. • Other impa&Allitt . -Aly ASona. 1 i�l ilk ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO �QerQ._IIM�tT.�- tam_ 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? @IN0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ El Yes ONO 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, Mn4 resources? r ."O DYES, Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 f • 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 ❑ ❑ agricultural land. El ONO • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ Of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more ❑Yes ONO than 2.5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑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 ONO IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO ES I ( f necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 17. 1, Appendix 6.) ' Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, orro p lett components obviously different from ❑ I L1 ❑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 ❑ ❑ aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their ❑Yes ONO f enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ screening of scenic v%ws I:nown to be important to the area. ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: Mjft .._ y4ff1dL—4IbA4taT )14 L0LSh /�cw�nr ❑ ❑yes ONO 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 ❑ ❑ contiguous. to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register 1:1 Yes ❑No of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ project site. ❑ ❑Yes []No • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ IIS, archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. ❑ ❑Yes ONO • 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 o r ro { F rtunities? es Exam lthat t w ould apply to column 2 N � I • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opp rttu rttyYES • A major reduction of an open space important to the com{'mYuni�ty. L1 ❑Yes []No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ El Yes ONO 9 q0deate 2IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATIONPotential Can Impact Be 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Large Mitigated By ENO ❑YES Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy El El Dyes ONO 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 ONO NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? - ONO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive El ❑ ❑Yes ONO facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). El ❑ []Yes ONO • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding `the local ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a El ❑ [--]Yes ❑No noise screen. ❑ ❑ Dyes ONO • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?GNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO 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 ONO form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes E:]No gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N0 within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. . • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ONO 10 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER 2 3 OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Small to Potential Can Impact Be y 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing commun y; Mode rate Laprge Mitigated By t➢NO 1 ES J� Im act Im act Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 /' � • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ El Yes []No Project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ will increase b more than 5% ❑Yes ❑No Y 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. ❑ Dyes ❑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 E]! ❑ [-]Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed) Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ �I • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ I ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controvers related to potential adverse environmental impacts? it 6 ❑YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potentialurge Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, I ioceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCEII OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially 4rge, 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 toderat rT>jq e impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that t lis 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) i 14 14 111'-'B7)-9c 'k - ` Appendix: B � t-te Environmental Quality Heview 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/z 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 11 1110 ❑ ❑ 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? El Cl ❑ ❑ 11 • The State Forest Preserve? NIA ❑ D El ❑ 11 • National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? Nin ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? NIA • National Park Service lands? NIA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El or Recreational? NIA • Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? Nln • A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? • Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 • County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • State? NN.! 'Rr 2� (Ma,�+ R•no) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ • Local road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 DESCRIPTION OF EXING VI'SUAL 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 ❑ IN Agricultural NIA ❑ ❑ Suburban residential ❑ Industrial N//a ❑ ❑ Commercial NIA ❑ ❑ Urban NIA ❑ ❑ River, Lake, Pond DAM Pam ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks MIS ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space NIA ❑ ❑ Flat ® ❑ Hilly ❑ Mountainous N/A ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: *1/2 mile ❑Yes F-1 No *1 miles ❑Yes El No *2 miles ❑Yes ❑No *3 miles El Yes El 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 Mid;MA(- 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 ❑ ❑ E 2 Sut3F/LCS 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 Mi or Subdivisions Town Hall, 53095 Main Road located at �ast Marion on P.O. Box 1179 Dam Pond: $CIM# 1000-22-3-19, Southold, New York 11971 20, 21, 22 land 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, L Andrew Lettier7� Bernice Lettieri I ' , a AGENT FOR northAmerican GOVAN LINES elC \ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor q j George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TiS1JJY.�I. 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 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 aid ! 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,'i500. 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, Rlch��G/ Ward S Chairman Enc. Referral letter of February 4 , 1992 • rr::zzz:�, vto F,01 G PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman '�' '�"' 1 q�, ,.,�. ({, 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 Le#ieri 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 to acknowledge receipt of your check for ,$1 , 500. 00 as payment for the review of the long environmentallassessment forms for the above-noted subdivision applications. Our environmental consultant is being notified to begin the review. In closing, I must remind you that we have not roceived written authorization for you to act on behalf of Andrewi,Lettieri and Bernice Lettieri, respectively. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 16 May 3, 1993 Mr. Latham: Second that motion. Mr. Ward: Seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Tatham, Mr. Orlowski, 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 commantsl�lto 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: '. UftigKi and Mr. g ya -- Appointment to dhscuss pending sub- division proposals. SCTM# 1000--22--09, 20, 21 , 22 and {_1--5--1 .2. Welcome. Joseph Gazza: . The Board may remember, I'm Joseph Gal--a-. This evening I have Mr. Andrew Lettieri, and his wife, Bernice Lettieri, in he orange sweater. We, the owners of this property, have been before your B3ard several times over several years; it probably goes back even longer than th t. I brought, along a overall map -- maybe I could refresh the Board's recollec ion 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 tl� parcel- of Bernice Lettieri, this is the parcel of Gazza, and this is the reel of Iattieri 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 ex- ception of this overall parcel, which was the suhject of[a prior Planning Board approval- when= 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 t1a Board for six or seven years? Mr. McDonald: Ten, fifteen. Ms. Scopaz: It was before my time. Southold Tovn Planning Board 17 May 3, 1993 Mr. Lettieri: 1983. Mr. Gazza: We've come quite a ways with t''e )t'?2r agencies, for example the DEC has been involved with this project, and they have cine extensive wetland flagging, those are all the numbers that appear, and you can sot the different classifications of wetlands. T'-ie Suffol'c County ll�alth Dept. 'las reviewed this in connection with groundwater supply and water quality, and soil. quality. Some rather extensive wor'c was done in t'?e mi,' 80's pertaining to the avail-- ability of potable water supply for tl2 lots as proposed. A series of test wells were driven and analyzed to determine if the water q�ality was good and the engineer calculated that there was approximately four Rimes the amount of water availahle on the site than the site would usa. But despite the eight or nine years of review and alot of Ih•ior!; that went into this we haven't receivedd an approval on the map. Mr. T,^ttlieri 1-eeps asking me, maybe I'm doing somet'Ang wrong and I don't have e answer for him. Maybe I am doing something wrong. Tie purpose of this evenings maeting was to as!- the Board where we're going on this subdivision. Mayhe Nr-'re `loo'•rinq at it wrong. Maybe we should be tooli.ng a different direction. May've te Board can give us some imput, some guideance, so may ?r ✓e could briig this to a conclusion. Mr. Leto ri has become 10 years older in e we start- . , and i,'.vg lost alot of hair since we started. Mr. McDonald: You don't get any sympathy from me. Mr.Gazza: But mayhe, with the Board's input we might maybl correct a pat'?. Maybe we've been going down a wrong pat's, maybe we need e a lvice from the Board. And that's why we're here tonight to see 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 07,, a little background as to where we're at and what we've given '-ac', to you on it. Ms. Scopaz: Well, basically where this application is, wJ have five separate before efore this Board and we have not peen ahle o proceed because we started the environmental review. We have not 1Teen ableo proceed with the environmental review. We're doing five separate applicati ns and the SEQRA was never concluded. The Planning Board's last letter went o in March of 1.992 saying that we need to mace a determination of significan e to complete t'le environmental. review and that whin were as'cing for payment of the environmental review fee of $300.00 for each application, for a total otic $1500.00. Basically that's what we need. We need to proceed with the environmental. review. Tp12 DEC and the Health Dept. so far as my understanc'i_ng, will !not proc^ed with their raviewr of the application because they don't have aiSEQPA determir?anon from the Town. And that's 'ka sicall.y where ore are. Mr. Ward: So that's our next step, or your next sten. Mr. Ga-za: Yeal?, on the issue of SEQRA, when we started eight or nine years ago, there was an attempt by the DEC to have a coordinated review, and South-- hold Town was invited to join in that coordinated review, ihut chose not to. Southold Town Planning Board l8 May 3, 1993 Mr. Gazza: It seems like we're going to be pulled bac'- into the SEQRA process when there's already been quite an estensi.ve SEQRA wort done by the state DEC. Air. Ward: ]Fiat application was that on? Mr. Gazza: The overall subdivision requires DEC. . . Mr. Ward: You're saying there was SEQRA revie�.r, was teaton a particular application you're referring to? Mr. Gazza: The DEC commenced their review on the entire ubdivision appli- cation. All of the lots, loo'ring as a whole, the DEC SEQ And they invited Southold to do a coordinated, by several letters, and Sou hold ei.t'1er declined or didn't accept, I don' t 1-1101w how you would put it. Ms. Scopaz: We have a letter from the DEC where we questioned that. And basically they came to the conclusion that the Tovm shoul, conduct it's own environmental review. We have to reach our olrn determination of significance, and we're having a separate action. 'ri,2 fact that the Town didn't tal=e part in the DEC review for it's permit apparently d.idci't preclude the Town from doing it's own coordinated review, including the DEC in with it as well. That was outlined in a prior letter in Fe",,ruary of 1992. So the1�EC, so far as I am aware, the DEC and the Town are on the same wavelength. [e DEC has no objec- tion to Via Town conducting it's own review. Mr. Gazza: I would agree t'.at Cie DEC would allow you to furt'?er 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 allthe data is all there, you're all ready to go, the thing to do is get it togetl- lr and let's start the review process, whatever we 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 down and maybe :we're there. Mr. Gazza: Werl.l, from the review with the DEC that's b n conducted, they're focusing on the issue of crossing the wetland area with the proposed road, and they're very concerned about tris area, as well as the S uthold Town Trustees, whom I've had a meeting en tl in the fief' and this is sort of the focal point of this subdivision, so to sp2a'c. 71e DEC suggested tha alternate access be obtained for the peninsula. They're suggesting coming tough and connecting into the Harold Reese subdivision access road. And the DEC is 'iesitant to approve this configuration until we have <xhaust d the p ssibility of obtaining access for the peninsula, other than crossing this wetla d area. Now, I recog- nize that concern and that's going to be an important past of the review process under SEQRA. And this one little focal point co1(9e pard the SEQRA and I could see the environmental impact study focusing �n this and h coming a few pages several inches high. Now, Mr. Lettieri and I recognize this, and we're trying to get an alternate way in. Mr. Lettieri maybe you could explain to t'ie Board about our efforts to. . . 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 spoke with him he said well Vien I get approval maybe we can wor'c out something. Mr. McDonald: What's Mr. Reese's status rigbt 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 SEQRAlov2r his project un- til we grant the final approval, right? Mr. Scopaz: What do you mean, do we still have jurisdict on? Mr. McDonald: Until we 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 now. Mr. Gazza: Well, Mr. Reese is not obligatel to grant ushe access. Mr. Ward: What the SEQP.A process is, to put all ti-lis on the table, and ma':e it a package and develop all the alternatives and loo!c at all the options, environmentally, economically, everyt'iing; that's the pac'�age that needs to be put together. The faster you get going with that, the ducker you're going to resolve this subdivision. Mr. McDonald: As time goes by, just as you saic', you're educing your options in the access. Tt creates new problems with the impact s atement, if there is one. Whether there is one or not, for that matter. Fir. Gazza: Will there be one if. . . Mr. McDonald: Who knows? We don't have tha application, we don't have the review, we don't have anything to look at to make a detpr- ination, which is why we want to move ahead. I think if you got it in that you would strerigt`ien your hand. about the access over the alternate route, rathIr than weal-en it. But that's just my opinion. Mr. Kiernan: How did the DEC treat t'jis matter? Mr. Gazza: The DEC prefers an alternate access route other than the crossing. Mr. Kier,ian: What was their SEQRA determination? Southold Toxin Board ?0 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 e,;hausted tl* other alternative access route. Now, what is exhausted mean? Does it meani, 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 lof 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 think a determination from us would esse tially solve your problem with the DEC. If you had your determination, wha ever it would he, they're probably going to loo'- at that and go, well if th Tocm is signed off on that, we must move. So I thin'r the best thing you can do is move yourself ahead here. Because every day that goes by, I don't '-now what'll happen with Mr. Reese, but if he finally does get his Health and he's all loc'-ed up, lie 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 have any abi ity to help you. I'm uncertain about my power even with it, but it's more than it would be pace he has the final. approval. Ms. Scopaz: You have to '-eep in mind he is moving ahead lith it. It was on the agenda; he's starting with his lot line change, so hels moving ahead. . . Mr. Gazza: He's like 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 tiling. Without the SEQRA, to talk about the layout, we're not. . . Mr. Gazza: I was hoping to extract a little bit more from you than that, you ':now this. . . Mr. McDonald: I wish I could give it to you, but I don'tl!,have it. Mr. Gazza: You 'mow, the applications have been 'sere awh'le. I know everyone has studied them and probably been on the property severe. times, and looked it over. When we started it was one acre zoning, now it's d o acre zoning. Mr. McDonald: Well, that's another reason to put a rush On it then. Mr. Gazza: Three acre or five acre, what's next? But, are we asking for some- 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. Soe direction at this ve point could save us time and money and maybe githe Boa d what you're looking for. Mr. McDonald: Your yield is determined by your bul.'-, thatll's. . . Mr. Gazza: Well., we could loot- at a formula and determine, that, and I agree with you, but. . . Southo7_? ^o:m Planning Board 21 May 3, 1993 Mr. McDonald: Until we even stake out the wetlands, how do we even '.mow what the bulk is? Mr. Gazza: Ede 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'rO 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? i Mr. McDonald: I thought that that's where we were goingito head then, but obviously I crossed a wire in the way I understood it. eally, the best suggestion I can give you is, get, into the SEQRA on this and move it ahead. That's the step that you need to tace right now. Once t at's behind us it's a giant leap forward. Mr. Gazza: Would I be correct in assuming that this woul�id '*-,come 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: Then it's a Type I, we have nothing to sa� about it. Mr. Gazza: So as a Type I, we're tal'cing. . . Mr. McDonald: It's a long form. Mr. Gazza: It's a long form and we're tal'cing ahout a supplemental DEIS as a presumption. Do you thin!- it's a good presumption? Mr. McDonald: You do the long form and we' ll see. It's'11--)2en a year since I've been out there. Mr. Lettieri_: Tbere's no way we could possibly circumvmot that, if we change the configuration. . . Mr. McDonald: The only thing I can give you as a guide ¢n that is, the people that were in here before you, the 72conic Land Trust, ha a similar application, a Type T, and '.chat they dial to their subdi.vislon, and yol can get a loo'; at it in the file, was such that they mitigated all the potentyal problems in ad-- I `� vance, in that subdivision, and they got a Negative Declaration. They were Southold Town Planning Board ?2 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 the environmental concerns, or the majority of them. Mr. McDonald: Yeah, but that's ':ind of inverted. Yes, if you can find a :Tay to mitigate them, you solve one of your problems. And t at's the 'cind 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 Toim Attoroey on that, to see what power we have in that respect. Mr. Gazza: Well, we don't have a legal access. . Mr. mcDonald: I'm not tal'cing what power you have; whatpowerwe have. I don't know if we can give you something that you can' t necessarily give yourself. Mr. Gazza: Well, I have made prior requests to the Boar to try to induce the subdivision adjacent to ours to have a coordinated acces or a coordinated road system, rather than have two roads side by side. I h,lveioursued that. Mr. McDonald: We read your letter. Believe me we pay attention to these letters, too, but we 'ceep waiting. . .I believe everythinglyou're telling me, but in our paperwork, for our review, none of this is coroborated by our ex- perts or anything else. We have a map, yes, but our e:mZs haven't even been out there to say, yes, X, Y Z, he's absolutely right. Sc that's why we need to get into this process. Mr. Ward: I thins: basically, to let a year go wit'iout getting involved with your SEQRA process, and by now you would have been done; 'Ilet's get in it and get it going. Mr. Gazza: We were hoping to reach a settlement with the subdivision next door to use their road system, to eliminate this, which r�ould really save us alot of work, the whole process, save the envi.ronmont. . Mr. McDonald: Moving ahead strengthens your hand. The l re you wait, the weaker your hand gets. Once that final approval, there' literally nothing we can do. Mr. Lettieri: He seemed to indicate, at least to me, tht he was 1,aiting for his final approval and then we could discuss i.t, but thea. . . Mr. McDonald: Well, that's between you and him; maybe you can. Mr. Latham: You tal'cing to Mr. Reese, Jr.? Mr. tettieri: Yes, junior. Mr. Kiernan: Have you spoken to Mr. Reese's attorney inl'ian effort to try to move this. 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 I did converse with lis 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 his suhdivi.sion', finalized. He's afraid that it might jeopardize, to the slightest dcgree� his subdivision, and he doesn't want to take that chance. Mr. McDonald: Well., that's what would help you here. TF we, in our review, said that that was advantageous, it tares 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 wou d think that that's the way we work. Ms. Scopaz: You should he aware that all of your paper.r�rk' is at the environ- mental consultants, and it has peen there for last year. I We're just waiting for the check; he's ready to move on it. The hall 's in your court. Mr. McDonald: Ts there anyway that we can. . .obviously, Loney is an issue too. Can we make this one application? Ms. Scopaz: They have chosen not to merge their propert�- Mr. McDonald: If they made one application, would the f�e he lover? I Ms. Scopaz: I don't I-now, because the consultant is alrady 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 rate to. . . Mr. McDonald: If he made one application, would he be p+ying $400? Ms. Scopaz: Right. Mr. Latham: Well we don't 'mow. Mr. McDonald: There's an option. You've got to make yolr own decision, but if you want to reduce the cost, you maga 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 ciosen not to m^i ge their properties. Mr. McDonald: Well, that's OK too. Mr. Lettieri: Mr. Gazza owned this property -- that's ho,, I met Mr. Gazza. Ms. Scopaz: He's suggesting it would be cheaper. . . Mr. Lettieri: I know and T appreciate that, very much. bIiy don't we try that? Mr. Gazza: I don't. want to merge my land with your landllPlease, we've been trying for 10 years to hrea'c them apart, now you want tol ,put them together? Southold Town Planning Board 2� May 3, 1991, Mr. Lettieri: Are we just merging an application? We're not merging land? Mr. Kiernan: Does the ownership of the land 'lave to be merged in order to consider it an single application? Mr. McDonald: I don't think so. Mr. Ward: I think you can combine applications. Mr. McDonald: Yeah, I thin': you can combine the applicat'on without combining Vie land. Essentially, you've done that already, you've �ome in as a group and you're going. . . Mr.Lettieri: Well, we did this to show the planning Boar' at the time, because I 'm not a developer by any means, obviously you can tell; lwhen 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 bette feel of what we're trying to do here. That'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 eno gh to realize along side of us that someone else was doing, at that time I th nk even Billy Joel was buying the land. So we 'had no idea what anyone else ' s doing here other- wise we would have tried to meet with the people that owned the land 'here to If now to go this way because we didn't ' owr that we going t have a problem. Because there is a farm road that goes over the wetlands hat has been used for many years. Mr. Latham: Yes, it goes right down near the bay, very 1�w. Ms. Scopaz: Mark, one thing to keep in mind, if they chose to come in as one application, it then converts the whol.e 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 lilce the $1200 is the cheapest way ot. Mr. Lettieri: Yes, OK. III "I Mr. McDonald: You will be at the Board of Review up there? Mr. Latham: This is your road adjoining Ree.se's? If youicame in with this, you could put your own road at least, this far, without an� problem, couldn't you? i Southold Town Planning Board ?5 May 3, 1993 Mr. Lettieri: You mean if we wor'ced out something with Reese? Mr. Latham: No, right in here. You don't have to wor', out anything to start your own road here, do you? Mr. Lettieri: That's correct, right. (Everyone tal'cing) Mr. McDonald: Yes, but their thinking is, that if you'relgoing to make the road from here to here, why two roads, why not oma? Mr. Latham: It would be less than paying Mr. Reese for i�, but you have to pay someone I guess. Mr. Lettieri: Well, we thought he would save some bucks Elnrt.. . Mr. McDonald: You could mace a deal, sure. Mr. Gazza: We offered to pay half. Not only the road hut� the utilities. Mr. McDonald: I think you're probably going to ta'.e a ha d look at that in the SEQRA because that's one of the number one mitigat, on. that you're going to tall-, about. You're going to tall, about not disturbing that wetland at all for the road anymore. We're tanking about trying an alte native. Mr. Gazza: The configuration of lots on the peninsula, c n the Board just give us a little input on that? I know you've all looked at i 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 everythind 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 thin', 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 make it better, it maces for less review and gets you something closer to what you-r,- looking ou'relooking for as an end product. Do you find fault with three lots on the point? Mr. Orlowski: 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 ma',e another comment. Ate need tol be very careful. If this is a Type I action, and we are negotiating about whatyou want to. do, in a sense, obviously you're only listening, you're not agreeing to anything, you're just getting comments. Are we conditi.onalizing your appro�al in such a way that we make your SEQRA illegal? This is a Type I action., We cannot issue a conditional approval, which means we can't sit down with ybur map and start making deals about this map to mitigate the impacts on it., You can submit r Southold Town 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're� care of that. But if Ave sit down and start trying to actually mitigate these; iI'm not .sure, but I get the strong feeling that that's a conditionalization, 'J.n a sense, and not legal. I'm not sure of that, but everything I've read gijves me that impress- ion. It may not he formally conditional declaration, butlit is in fact because you've made all these decisions to mitigate it. I 'snow 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 same more you'd lilt= 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. Those 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 be entitled. Mr. Gazza: Would we have to come before your Board for dietermination as to the improvement of that access road? Mr. McDonald: No. Mr. Kiernan: You make an application to the Building Dep . , they grant it and no one challenges their building permit; you're in. If t ey deny you, you need to go the ZBA 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 Ave didn't have to go to ?BA, could the Building Dept. determine crushed stone or. . . Mr. McDonald: If you don't have access, you have to go tl the ZBA, so if you do have access then he just gives it to you. He just givos you your building permit. 'That's all there is to it. It's either black or white. Ms. Scopaz: Well, you have to have Health Dept. approvallon that lot. Southold 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. 1s 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 a6d I don't thin': he's loo'cing 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 n¢ way we're going to he approve this, maybe if you came in with less, tchances are. . . Mr. McDonald: T used Ploc'.c as an example to the people w o 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; actualy five lots. Now I'm not proposing any ratio or any equivalancy there. I 'm ju t 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 conditi nalizing it. You need to make decisions about what is in your hest judgeme t and what you think from what you've read. You got alot of material from the, DEC, you've done alot of wor!c already. Mr. Latham. They won't let you bridge this in any way? Mr. Gazza: They said a bridge was their alternative two or alternative three, after we've exhausted an alternate access. They have a c assification of alternatives that. . . Mr. McDonald: I hope it's two, because if it's tiree you've got another one after this. . . Mr. Lettieri: I guess you all know Frank Cichanowicz, b ause T have shown this to Frank many years ago and he's a designer of beaut'ful 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 w y until we can't get. . . Mr. Latham: There's a big hole down there with a fresh w ter pond in it, isn't it? Mr. Gazza: Right here. Mr. Latham: A big deep hole. Very good water. 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 'sere, or is it? Southold Town Planning Board 28 May 3, 1993 Mr. Lettieri: Yes, that's his. Mr. Ward: OK you folks can stay a couple of minutes, I'd ,just like to close the hearing and get rid of our tape at this point. Mr. McDonald: I mace a motion to close this hearing. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Motion passed. There teing no further business to come hefore the Board, llllthe meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted) Martha Jones Secretary Richard G. Ward, Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS a ¢ n Bennet[ Orlowski, Jr., Chairman SCOTTL. HARRIS k �,�+ ` -a- Richard George Ritchie Latham, Jr. `, j 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 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 a�d 31-5-1. 2 Dear Mr. Gazza: This is in response to your telephone call ' ndicating that Mr. Lettieri would not be able to attend the Pla ning 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 sugg sted that you be there shortly thereafter. Siffcerely, !/G�IiLG[i� Valerie Scop Town Planner L, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ,' � SCOTT L. HARRIS " �+- George Ritchie Latham, Jr. - "'"�✓ Supervisor •: �/ .+ Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Town Hall, 53095 Main Road "'�="`' i Kenneth L. Edwards P.O. Box 1179 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 w' ll be available to speak with you and Mr. Letterri at t e close of its March 22nd meeting at Town Hall. The meeting wil start at 7: 30 PM. I suggest you arrive shortly thereafter. I apologize for the lateness of this letter ut staff has been unsuccessful in reaching you by telephone fo the last week. Sincerely, i Valerie Scopaz Town Planner I • JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA pp ATTORNEY AT LAW V�p5��� P.O. BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE 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 . Mr. Letteri and I respectfully request to appear before your Board to discuss this matter in March at a date that is convenient for your Board. I am available to me t with the Board sooner however Mr. Lettieri will only be r turning to New York in March. Thank you for consideration to this request . Very yo rs,[ JOSEPH FRE]DFICK GAZZA cc : Andrew Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers, New York 10701 i FB24 D SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS rn ` 2 SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �-c� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. /J� L- � 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 Lelttieri SCTM#1000-22-,3-22 Andrew Lettiep:-i 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. • 0 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. • 0 o�4%tFF04CO PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS y ? < Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman O '�' ( '{'-��, ` SCOTT L. HARRIS str George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Supervisor ._!� -ti- Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Town Hall. 53095 Main Roar Kenneth L. Edwards - P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 April 9, 19921 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 nd 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 Orlowsk Jr. Chairman CC: Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA 4 ' ✓5 ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 969 5 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE.NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) Southold Town Planning Board . fBNINB 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 31-05-1 . 2 Dear Board Members , The above referenced minor subdivision appli ation has been pending with your board since July 16th, 1985 . D ring the course of your 6 3/4 years review of these applications he 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 ,requ sted in writing to your board eleven ( 11 ) times to provide for a Common road system rather than two roads running parallel''with other over 1200 feet. The NYS DEC had on 9-20-1991 outlined by lettir ( opy attached) that the roadway as proposed independently on our subd visions could be expected to adversely impact tidal wetlands and r commended that access to our property be by using the proposed s reet or the adja- cent property to the west, Cove Beach Estates. Tie DEC continued in V A that the Cove Beach Road would be the most of icient 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 End road 'systema •• q= 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 accesE system. I am available to meet with your board to discuss this issue at your convenience . Surveys depicting coordinated road Eystems have been previously submitted by the undersigned. to your board . Please ad ise, ') ,-o r cc: Andrew and Bernice Lettieri 48 Cayuga Road Yonkers , New York J0710 Jose G zza encl . /¢ka,✓/xiu !v 77ua Oxy via : Certified Mail RRR LOlzo, %-4- ••-•• ..`1 r u r • SENDER: Complete Items 1 and 9 wnait eutln6uiral - 3 end 4. Certified Mail Rece t Put your eJJreaa I11 tha"PETURN TO" on t • averse elle.Fellurs to tla fhb will pr No Insurance Coverage Pro from being returned to yau.The return r lee will r Idou hnname�1 the Ppr If d DD n01 use in IRlemalionnl a a o d liver fror ad irl trona ass o owing services are a evaleble. onsut poem, 1 See Reverse an c ec ox as or additional service($)requested f 1 1. O Show to whom delivered,date, end addres es's address. '2. O Restricted Dell SnCn mv� (Eara charge) '(Extra charge) iSo Ate] 3. Article Addressed to: - 4. Article Number ShwaN° SOTuTIio Id Towo PIPP�POA a3 90 3o 9f Mht- E.it = / i pe of Service Po,sial.a zip cm. S qS mje}r h �cl `.DU laterad y Insured >. fOv.1 t I c17, ' art :i'"')'ra D. �4/`I r,) t1w{. SC uTt't'O1 L ( �y -!D ? pro eMnd" A'n Q CPO Receipt rosia9e C 1 f _for Morchandiee _ 0 a s b elgnature of addressee cedeled Fee PrP. O nt a ATE DELIVERED Spetlni Delivery Fee 5. Signature - Addresses j ddresses',a Address (ONLr J :., reglrerted and fee paW) Realricmd D.Ihery Fae 6. Sign a —•Agent ` `) ��' 'a`;R_'6'� be narurn Ametpt Shoeing X T to whom uve.ed �-L - 7.Late of Delivery a.�yy,p k4 `oa10 k" net. Rece fir Whom. c �t .;..y=r1b Dale,a rase R1rAL Page PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989 tua d.Rd.t a""Is DOMESTIC RETURN RECEK G th `' a -_ e*a.�'l i@.,, `7'7a fa iF a43 •'s.5't2+r' i+-k.0 1 f t ` L .. . ,. ;. . k,a. 3 lt,axa y*§r'{.v s>"t-Z� f f:��'4�4r'1•�w>�. �ie�,"6� '4 - ..tn i 1 I 4� I \ o •, � :aas � ra .. m i,lc .A G•t., 1\ C Or Ob I�tl f � .n :� O � sb36ob ti + moo• � : Elll`I o m O N t d ... _ .i : O s 1 r••d:A . •A o.-fie J.e' .n O wA f 50•f t!' q ,'O4.A. y 4• A 1 r/ �- s4 •4- � r �.k t i p t s, • r • ,1y y 9 ' �y, ...9 CA •rI r '1i ii ri ,4 +\�1 i:0�c �,. t. , y y to Gyya A} • 7 * 0' p ; .ire - 1. i„Ya•"• 9 T ' ,.a �,� � s [d}to as __ \ 9 �`�. • y y Y O > 4 ' • � ?, • ri Y% i fill; P jl glg � moi"` i � ,.a, r ? ♦ � I l i � C r _ r>• - `r` Sr11 11 s' 'i� e�•• •� � 11� 11 ' - .Z�r' µ rn •A � fill) .e .oro e• m f' ,e ns r'+ ! - .r �i�•. ex vam FW4, o r Gym 1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS w Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman O y� SCOTT L. HARRIS George Ritchie Latham, Jr. \- Supervisor Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Kenneth L. Edwards P.O. Box 1179 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 vis-a-vis the classification of these applications and needforan 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 • �CIJGLF ��SUPFD(tCOGy �'?S TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President w F i.` ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. d ` + JohnJohn a nosld,TuthilIJr ��`r�l It ��� Town Hall 53095 Main Road Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES P.O.Box 1179 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold,New York 11971 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, 19512 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 this location. g a road in On face value, the Trustees might even have a pro lem with a public road in this location were the property en irely in public ownership. Any plans to develop the peninsula will have to take into account the possibility that the waters and nears ore areas of this "pond" are a finfish breeding area of consid rable loc importance. sour�;oto ic;^rN PLA"'faUJG EUAND !! 4� i JOSEPH FREDERICK GAllA —nn Fy/ ATTORNEY AT LAW U Lu P.O. BOX 969 5 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE, NEW YORK 119592 7 ` (516)653-5766 (DAY AND EVENING) MWAMR SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Southold Town Planning Board 53095 Main Road 3 Z5 9'Z Southold , New York 11971 Re : Pending minor subdivision application at Dam Pond, East Marion Section #1000-022-03-019, 020, 021 , 022 and 31-05-1 , 2 Dear Board Members , The above referenced minor subdivision appli ation has been pending with your board since July 16th, 1985 . D ring the course of your 6 3/4 years review of these applications the major obstacle to obtaining approval of the division as been acc ss . It is obvious to any reviewer of the above referenced that the Droposed 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 ,requ sted in writing to your board eleven ( 11 ) times to provide for a 2ommon road system rather than two roads running parallel with others over 1200 feet . The NYS DEC had on 9-20-1991 outlined by letter ( opy attached) that the roadway as proposed independently on our subd 'visions could be expected to adversely impact tidal wetlands and r commended that access to our property be by using the proposed s reet or the adja- cent property to the west, Cove Beach Estates . Tie DEC continued in 0 A that the Cove Beach Road would be the most efficient as well as the most environmentally sound solution. The Sou hold 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 fa :t be trustee land and not available for road access . It is apparent to the undersigned that your Doard is oblivious to my eleven requests and the requests of the NYS DEC and Southold Town Trustees, which all uniformly agree that a c ordinated road system be designed to promote proper planning and safeguard environ- mentally fragile areas . Your board ' s failure to Drovide even a "spur" to allow interconnection of adjacent subdivision ind road systems between Cove Beach Estates and our lands amounts o poor planning . I respectfully request that your board reconsider the access issues set forth above prior to your granting fin 1 approval to the Cove Beach Estates subdivision map and road acceS3 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 Joseo G zza encl . via : Certified Mail RRR New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 (516) 751-7900 I 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 Sub ivision 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 about 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 r ad. 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 Senior Environment 1 Analyst GWH:rw ' attachment cc: file 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. 1'. 0. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue„ N.Y. 11959 RE: DEC Application # 10-87-1200 Dam Pond Subdivision, fast 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 sitehas been visited several times by Depart ent staff for inspection and wetland boundary delineation. The issues of concern have been the proposed access road and the location/configuration af the building envelopes on several of the lots. My Letter to you dated July 17, 1990, discussed the Depar ment 's concerns about the roadway and several of the proposed lots. In respo se you sub- mitted detail drawings of the roadway and additional prints o 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 re iew 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 luly 17, 1990, letter, the Department objects to the construction of a 40 foot e roadway across the wetlands because of the filling and wetland destructiondinvolved. 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 port , past the landward end of the tidal wetland area to a point` where a roadway could be constructed eastward across lot 111 of the Gr ndbesitzer Corps west parcel to join the current alignment. Thi3 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 (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 tc be proposed in a manner that absolutely minimizes the amount of uetland area destroyed. The proposed 20 foot wide gravel roadway with 10 foot bulkheaded shoulders is not acceptable. To proceed, please submit a written statement evaluating alternatives 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 bulkhea(fing, 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 age cies 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 stak s A - CC foi the field inspection. The July 17, 1990, letter includes a list oE 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 ti al wetland boundary.. Please see page 2 of the July 17, 1990, letter whici lists each stake found to be less than 75 feet from the tidal wetland bou Bary. As can be seen from the marked print of the subdivision map, there ar . four lots which contain building envelopes which do not meet setbacks. lease reloc9te the building envelopes on these lots to meet the required 75 f of minimum setback. As the lots are all relatively large, it should be a fairly simple matter to redesign the envelopes to comply. Joseph Frederick Gazza, Esq. September 20, 1991 Page 3 Please be certain to measure setbacks from the DEC flaggel tidal wetland boundary shown on the survey. Please discuss our requirements with the other applicants ,questions, please call me at 751-1389. upon receipt of: If you have - 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 ove 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 t is matter. Very truly //yours, George W. Hammarth Senior Environmental Analyst GWH/rw cc : file �II i 4%UFFQt4,6 TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President o �" SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President H Z SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski,Jr. WO ` !� John L. Bednoski,Jr. Town HaU John B.Tuthill � ��O 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 p � C � OdC Attorney at Law MAR 2 � P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane 7 + N� Quogue, NY 11959 SOUTHOLD TOVdN Re: 22-3-20, 22-3-21, 22-3-22, 31-5-2 PLANNING90APM y� � 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 habi at fragmentation and potential degradation of the we land associated with constructing homes and a road in his 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 t�e 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 developm nt plans for this site to be severe. If we can be of further assistance please do not h sitate to call. Sincerely, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees CC. Planning Board JMB/djh SOFFOL& Js TRUSTEES John M.Bredetneyer,III,President c SUPERVISOR Henry P.Smith,Vice President o SCOTT L.HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. • '� John L.Bednosld,Jr. y'�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(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 4, 1992 Joseph Frederick Gazza Attorney at Law P.O. Box 969 3 Ogden Lane Quogue, New York 11959 Re: Proposed minor subdivisions Lettieri & Gazza SCTM$ 1000-022-03-019,020,021,022 & 1000-031-05-001.2 Dear Mr. Gazza: The Southold Town Trustees appreciate your thorough response to our land ownership concerns as outlined in your letter of February 11, 1992. The Board of Trustees, which was created in 1676, holds title to all waters of the Town by virtue of the Andros patent. The Town is in the process of attempting recovery of the original document from the Brooklyn Museum. A complete c ain of authority exists for this ownership; town and sta e pre-colonial documents and the original State Con titution are replete with references to the patent and support our rights of ownership as not subject to divestiture. We do not consider the county tax maps the definitive autho ity on the ownership of underwater lands. Mean high water aid all surface waters must be accurately depicted on a licensed urvey for us to consider their veracity. Before a meeting with the Board at one of our evening work sessions it might be advisable to meet in the field with an accurate survey of the property. Should the surface waters and underwater lands of the Town not be involved you will still be required to secure a permit from this office for activities covered by our wetland ordinance and coastal erosion Hazard Act where applicable. The Boards next field survey is scheduled for March 19, 1992. Please feel free to schedule a meeting with our clerk for that date. Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB/djh cc. Planning Board (� VS JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE.NEW YORK 11959 (51 6)653-5766(DAY ANo EVENING) March 10 , 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Box 1179 Southold , New York 11971 Re: Five Minor Subdivision, situate at East Marioa 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 , Joseph erick Gazza cc: Mr. and Mrs . Lettieri rI ss2 UWNRD � _ Q o � PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ;, ,? SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman '-,� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward `4 ' '1� 7'- Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O.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 Boar 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 thatyou paid in 1985. The consultant will not be authorized to p oceed until we receive your check( s) made out to the Town of So thold in the total amount of $1500.00 or in separate checks o $300. 00 apiece. In closing, it would be appreciated if you would send written authorizations from Andrew Lettieri and 3ernice Lettieri to act as agent on their behalf. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowsk' , Jr. Chairman Encl. VS:vs CC: Andrew Lettieri Bernice Lettieri I • . ��SGiCE` JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA ATTORNEY AT LAW /")S P.O.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE.NEW YORK 11959 (516)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) February 25 199 �II 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 S QR was conducted by the NYS DEC over the past 4 years including a Stage 1 Archaeological survey. I possess do umentation 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 Ass ciates Inc. " did a duplicate SEQR review of this matter at Dur 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 , JOSEPH T ER CK GAZZA Encl . cc : Andrew Lettieri F'3 2 g 1 SOUTNOLO+npJN PLANNItIr Ii Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York 11971 1-r LEPHONE (516) 7651938 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. 1 a 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. GjAZ�•+ tl„ c6. fq .2 -77L, y truly you , BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. Q CHAIRMAN CC: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney John A. Cushman, Town Accountant kSZVI'AIOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANIs -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 _ $3445.00 PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT THANK YOU w D u l% LS �l5 DI OICE � LAEOWSKI AS$Q9AdE$INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 7 ti�};]� SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD DATE September 29 , 198 Mr. Bennet O�Clowski, 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 mos o1,fco -.3 pyo PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward -� �if� 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 20, 1 92 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. Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 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 Mr. Lettieri and the Grundbesitzer Corporation for you to act on their behalf . If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman CC: Andrew Lettieri Gundbesitzer Corp. CRAMER, V OCiATES • ENVIRONMENT 't tAU _ G CONSULTANTS February 1S,'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 Pis a subdivision applications under the names of Joseph Frederick Gary (2 applications), Bernice Lettieri,Andrew Lettieri, and Grundbesitzer and Andrew Lettieri, Dear Benny: As pe my conversation with Valerie Scopaz, the fee to r view the above referenced subdivision applications is $300.00 per praject. If there is any questions or the recd for additional information please: feel free to call. in erely, Charles J. Vc orhis, cv,AICD � i903 2 UTHOtD ioWN IrNNNG D BOARD 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 1176 (516) 331.1455 �4 JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA �� ✓ ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.BOX 969 3 OGOEN LANE .J QUOGUE.NEW YORK 11959 (516)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 no "underwater land".(*) 3. The ownership of lands of the Town of Southold is shown as "Darr 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 ca 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 thill who died in 1870 left a will recorded at Liber E Page 155 and Libez 10 page 602. George Tuthill's heirs at law were Henry H.C. Tuthill and Jul'ett 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 appeaz 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. Theninsula was farmed land and as such required continuous LUIt1JAr.e•v by fa equipment & tractors. The idea of restricting qw r.Ad „16.J. ;, rl" o,ly Z-,AL 4cc..,•. T, >`a over 20 acris for use only by foot(P3 your yetteris-i-)is a matter our attention will undoubtedly be focusing on at ourmeting, Kindly advise when I may appear before your Boar dito discuss the above referenced. Res ctfully submi ted, JOSEPH E I G ZA Encl. cc: Andrew & Bernice Lettieri i � ' 9 1J 'NUp aa., Y O w..0l •° \ wum ari 7N�•.° t c ti ! • 1/w i a.. • 1 I . F.fT Y.NgIL "e• 0 • �� MINION LINf l'• 12:• P�1P�P4 fi ` TOYM°0=:WTyRO ° �. © , •'i 'i � .J n'!,•! © 1,.11 � J Na na w,N i •A r ,�. f MINION`LINE ••'A'?b� �• 1�.111/li/ i. •'{ /� PO\PPPS TONN faYTNou w 't ''•• P `���� •+ V A�/. �Tti<. _ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 'i 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 m i 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, 19 )2 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 Po d. Grundbesitzer Corporation and Anirew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 Dear Mr. Gazza: The following resolution was adopted by tha Southold Town Planning Board at its meeting on Monday, February 3, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Plan ing 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 from the Grundbesitzer Corporation and Mr. Lettieri that you are authorized to act as their agent in their behalf. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowsi, Jr. Chairman Encl. Trustee Report cc: Andrew 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 N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation - Stony Brook (Attn: George ammarth) N.Y.S Department of State (Attn: Mohabir ersaud) N.Y.S Department of Transportation (Attn: Charles Kilduff) TRUSTEES hr0�o' CQGy l!5 John M.Bredemeyeq III,President o //" SUPERVISOR Henry I'. Smith,Vice President cot," SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. %d5 v John L.Bednoski,Jr. 9Q1 ��o Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 3outhold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board FROM: John B of Trustees Board of Trustees(///� RE: Proposed minor Subdivision: !If! Bernice Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3-21 �l.J Grundbesitzer Corp. - Andrew Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3-22 SOLI i1i0;'LlTCY!id Andrew Lettieri SCTM #1000-31-5-1. 2 PLANNIN" OnRO 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 I 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 � • r p;`-��'3i al'r PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS w a '.' �� SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. �� Richard G. Ward = Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald X`�f`G 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, 1! 92 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 Lettie i, and Grundbesitzer and Andrew Lettie i. 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 Depa tmept of Health Services are reviewing these five separate app icadons 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 i - THE MAP THAT ACCOMPANIED THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RIVIEW 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 ��fFd3(%fir, ,'yam PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS _;Sr, ZL SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman }'�O �°i .: _; :r: s Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. '�'�'-+ `•'�ti r 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 I 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 Po d. Grundbesitzer Corporation and An rew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 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, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. Coordination Letter Town Trustee Report Robert DeLuca' s Report: Suffolk Count Department of ealth Services Charles E. Kilduff' s Report: N.Y.S. epartment of ransportation Mohabir Persaud' s Report: N.Y.S. Dep rtment of State II y� g�fFO(,(• /'� • O CG '- TRUSTEES John M.Bredemeyer,III,President C2 . SUPERVISOR Henry P. Smith,Vice President W ` SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J.Krupski,Jr. John L. Bednoski,Jr. �1�1 ���� Town Hall John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES iouthold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board (� FROM: John Bredemeyer, IF - R n Board of Trustees/// RE: Proposed minor Subdivision: Bernice Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3-21 Grundbesitzer Corp. - Andrew Lettieri SCTM #1000-22-3-22 SOUTHOLDTO,vtV Andrew Lettieri SCTM #1000-31-5-1. 2 PLANNING 90ARD 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 wo ld 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 Robert J. Gaffney SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICESMaryE. 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, Grundbesitzer & 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)h received your letter of December 24, 1991, regarding the above-referenced application and h 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 he 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 environme tal effects. In our opinion, individual reviews of the five separate mirror subdivision proposals would circumvent the comprehensive review requirements and intent of SEQ . The implementing rules and regulations for SEQRA state clearly that "considering only a part oi 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 ittto ne overall project and map (see attached SCDHS letter of 1/13/88). In addition, separate project reviews are also inconsistent with they stated objectives of SEQRA which call for agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication of rep v ae � � JEAN 2 8 iggl COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 11901.3397 P ANNING BC?D 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 I ind division on the overall property. This approval (Minor Map of Andrew Lettieri) issued in 1985 involved the southernmost 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 exp re if the applicant has not filed a realty subdivision map with the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk Cc unty 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 Lettie ri 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 appl�cauts (Joseph Gazza)that we would not accept a 1984,Town-issued Negative Declaration for a 2-lot portion of the overall site as acceptable SEQRA compliance sufficient to warrant action by our ag�ncy, 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 (SCIM#: 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 eastenumost 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 Re uirements for Clustered Subdivisions with Private ells: In the event that the subject proposal is served by private wells,please advised that lot sizes may be reduced to 20,000 sq ft and conform to the water facilities requiremet its 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 at id water supply facilities). Lot size reductions can often provide valuable mitigation for potential n�tural 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 flu v specifications, subsurface soil conditions, test well data, and complete site plan details are essentia.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 disposo 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 Ill s 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 Depa4rtment of State. Staff from the Office of Ecology have conducted a field inspection of the overall pject 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 it�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 fans 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 channel stormwater runoff and its associated contaminants into the wetlands and surface waters of Darn 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 cokncemed 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 finfishing access, etc.). At a minimum, our agency strongly encourages that protected open spade 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 intendd for passive (non- motorized) recreational use and that they may not be subsequently conv rted to active recreational or community use (ball fields, impervious parking,tennis courts etc.) in!the future. D.Indiuenous Veeetation: 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 n�tigation 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 thecreation of large recharge basins, which we believe,have the potential to become unregulated "boow pits" or "sand nines" 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-Qut 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 recormmend the stabilization of all construction access points with a 50 foot long crushed stone bed(mininpum 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 Patrick (:. RA1nin SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HANRrL M.D.. M.P.H. COMMtSS40NER r January 13, 1988 Joseph Gazza P.O. Bcnc 969 3 Ogden Iane Quia3ue, N.Y. 11959 RE: SLIM# 1000-22-3-21,7.9,20,22 SLIM# 1000-31-5-1 Dear Mr.. Gazza: This Department is in receipt of five separate applications for Realty DeveloWent involving the above referenced properties. Due to the interrelationship of the properties and applications it is requested that the Developments be ccnsolidated into one overall Protect and map, for SEQRA review purposes This will facilitate the review and varianae process. I£ you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Royal R. Reynolds, PD Sr. Public Health EncTineer RRR:ljr Bureau of Wastewater Management cc: NYSDEC Southold Town Planning Board Vito Minei Hammarth, NYSDEC NTY CEN I + 548- RHEAD. T�Iinl�i'lr)'ti Y'S Er E ;o_ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 JAMES A. KUZLOSKI 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 SECTbL1 1000-22-3-19 East MarionDeare r . Dear Mr. Orlowski: F�L� ; 9a'zC 3' [a tt7e c ct /ict-�iSGC 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, a JOHN A. FALOTICOc'U Planning & Program Management Director soul �NG k"DgUARB p�p,NN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER pie STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY, N.Y. 1 223 1-000 1 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 Grundbe$itzer 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 , , $OUTHOLD TOWN p0 NING BOARD PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ° T Zr SCOTT L. HARRIS ',u9 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �qa,• - Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. ''+ ``'?u1n" y 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. Grundbesitzer Corporation and Andrew Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-22 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, �7 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. (/ Chairman Encls. CC: Andrew Lettieri, Applicant V��, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �d SCOTT L. HARRIS n 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 December 24 . 1991 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request for: Proposed Minor Subdivision of Grundbesitzer Corp & Andrew 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: Grundbesitzer Corp. & Andrew Lettieri West side Dam Pond East Marion, N.Y. SCTM #1000-22-3-22 Requested Action: To subdivide a 6. 29 acre lot into three 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 Bernice Lettieri SCTM # 1000-22-3-20 Minor Subdivision of Joseph Frederick Gazza SCTM # 1000-22-3-21 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 ja(,�f iLL JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA P ) ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE,NEW YORK 1 1959 (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 8, 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 started by that a coordinated review persua`pt to SEAR was y your Board on 9/11/85 would be consis%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 t}ese 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. (� n Resp ful JOSEPH CK..GAZZAI SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING.O.— O C4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �ti d*. SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ?� ` zp� _`, Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward �, ��;�' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald r" 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� Andrew Lettieri �•z 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 A 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, �! �vxG�/" G��2%rr✓�.Cc-�/ /�/S Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. cc: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Andrew and Bernice Lettieri New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 (516) 751-7900 Thomas C. Jorling CBmmissioner „ January 9, 1989 �� 9 4 �OUi;IDLD IC'!:'N ` Town of Southold Planning Board j PLA^! 1111111D 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 I 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 I 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 tie 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 ------------ FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President �U lnv 2 198 ALBERT 1. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President 5ALA) TELEPHONE JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III `C (516)765-1692 pl JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. �� SCUi IDLD TO' ' �� c)d,rr lnc ran aD HENRY P. SMITH '-" ---- - BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Joseph F. Gazza, Esq. November 25, 1988 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 yours, Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. President Board of Trustees. FAK:jas cc: Planning Board'' Building Dep' t. New York State Department of EnvironmenVIU�PERV,Soj.jS Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 CTSTIT Il ( 516) 751-7900 !�88 `f ''O E j u nr O Thomas C. Jorli, 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, Peter J., Frank PJF:sjmr Forester, Stony Brook 765-1801 00 OG TOWN OF SOUTHOLD c = OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE p 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 031 FRANCIS J. MUR SUPERVISOR 0 ® TOWN HALL,53095 MAIN ROAD so OLD TOWN "/ TELEPHONE AANNING BOARD '9IQl y ��� P.O. BOX 1179 (516) 765-1800 y ( SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 - OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 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 1000-31-5-26 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.,map 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 Adn 'nistrator at the DEC's Albany office, has in his possession a draft environmental impact statement for the 4 Mr. Harold Berger Page 2 Town of Southold 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, 'ra } J.�durphy Su __so , 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 LIST OF PROPERTIES AROUND DAM POND AND THEIR OWNERS SCTM # 1000-22-15. 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. Gillis Box 267 Aie 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 *COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 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: 7'1000-22-3-15. 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. Sincerely, 1 Neil R. n Environmental Analy Bureau of Environmentau Management Office of Ecology NRG/amf Enc. 6I ' j OCOUNTYCENTER SD�yD �PVERHEAO 14v 1190, 0 LS 0 U FS • .' . r Cecar-_^ent or Fe__L. Saris O. _7=- OF xCL.^Gi t .. .O.:._ y f`. B(J?�>u OF �I�Z?C�,M�`'I L n��iAGc �UTHOIDTOWN ^sCe�-__:• ��_,,,_ •� �� -� r i o NNINOBOARp N i - i `f •r Ru C - _ _ c_.____ 1 . Prc,ec- Narrie: 2. Pro je— Cesc– y , 4. i.-cai_ (tC n/V1� vcf r-q �� nn T� �i� ).. 5- Tax mac;;(s) G. Re=_ai PFOLO T: 7. USGS Quad: n 8. F.acs= :Yap 9. Cces the sir= adjoin anv P ^P��TE 7P or INI�HST �1T We1_Sv?� 'S No ❑ vo r A. River (str=_m) or Lace (Fcrd) : Nacre: s L no. Pond t < 'oriL 7 r+:.:r :,.r.�r no. C' WaL=- Q11z-:ii7C<assu'_caticn: --� D. W�R E. Fisn�-_ s Ccrxr�.ts: 10. Cces the sit_ ad join cr ccrr,ai_-1 anv F_ A. Are t esz wet_t • uNr�`� WET'r ',i,S? Nc ❑ Yew ands re ?at�? LT (_( YDS C Re^[L1 atc�! Aumt cr_:! u_ Re.e=anc2 Mao: C_355i —�� B. CCiTIi•L^.ts 11 . Laces t^e site adjoin or ccntaia r, - �n o A T=AL/C_j$T_.'-1L_^R.rSR Wt= \'L$. NTC csWe=and Zene(s) : m�4Yes �i-c , 12. F.E.M.A. F'cccmlain: r� r v - 13 J. Is t^is area No L! Yes �1 Classiaicatcn: Z� es A Ag Q an inventor_ed SIC IC1L'P CCAS=Z FIS __ _ 14. Is t^ s area S Wi:z— Reatcrz• an inventer_ed SICd IC:;NT SASr_17�T: Noy-e- No L les W1=1 C.E.3.A_ BCLNCARIF�? C rrz^.ts: "O ❑ Yes E]1 . Is `^is ar d Nsi Z F�-�MGE PRC(z.zm Silo 177. LPnar_ are t soil_ tt,•ces fcund cn the si`e? No �I_ Yes 18. Wrat is t a ac_r�c :ate deoLa to g•curl=.az:— cn t e. 19. Grcundnarar maaceme_nt20. Ce a T 11 ._ent PteiRec M 621 . Is is si-_ Wi_ n t eP c No � r_c__ 12 yam L' L- r � Cf 77 ' ' r .7 IN rc — V c:a c_ .. 3. _cttc- der:-" c' rat_xc ell si 00 c�(� ff- 77 IAC U _J 4 � �d £ c kk 34 I ca- Co �o t ✓ �( V J v s pJ µ 2 U r 07 dG ,n TO- ECo1ccical Pe^e= lcccistorn ccnt=ol -- recna=a c_ scat= rare- pot uLlcn conte ci 1 i e�ucat=cn ri'cl_ 11 . an ncerea: 12. T.°ire=t=_ned: 13. Sce es or Scec=al Cc,-c—: 1 � . Encancere3 , t'1r_atened,. rare, or vulnerable plants : 15. 7 -e:--eaten Uses: Fcati:•.c ncn_ I tract=--9vI nat=.ire s-d,., I ur main 76. Is tiffs lana pcst ? 1 ' P ctc�ac. c Inic=- .aticn (LCOLCC acn , r'=n-Le- �_ - or _::ctcs tas`-, s.:b�d-, ,- -+cc:ticnal Ci2c.:ssicn: Via O Buren_ .,_ :....__cr^e�-�: :+a^sc�:�-;� �.. • F. Vim: .- PART TT- Cesc_ ..-_cn e- `'1-Z• Gar�� moi.-..rte a a�. Oi- ''�`+ i Mar ty� M 1 'nA. C�rD�rZ�`l12`G_.��v'n L7rnCr O-� T hi 5� ` `�- lS `m.ou�-(.., •,_i�•;.^ ,i <I � � � 4 vz-nm Q� � , " a4 0 1 V . . o 1`�2 �-{' � . \ �.y ` Qyp!�w.v, 0.Y7.U, U.l,'YY•.0 �a+L Sp-W✓�-+,�[ � _ - it li"Q vr,�.r�CY'�c`--••�+ 0.y a^ �-L-al./� . �a..�J� p� �"•„a �. Ecc_cc Values \s u - G:rc__.s. (discssicn) lS Ot C, d `� 0 5��r-crw.-��•-'� 4�r\ i u r. P=7'A"- �'.•c.1 -_Cfl (G1sQlss tctenz:4 i dL='e, w17=. reSt-a= to 43• cc ' :moo.. ' •- � 4,2- t�Q. 4 L•__� _ t cn (a_s�ss cessible m:-cat:Lcn ==u =_ fcr ore,ec- v o t `1 � �`�o`t\ v`._�`L9�n✓..�-�. S�t�St`.'.v�Z G..-rl�-.-Q .Ivt o�'cs� c-, CA'Tr�GS-IL --�-• Y 2:Z'n Oz�.J� I '1 �L-!f��'^ V Nacre Title NaraTiti. v Nam= i ,1 ca`i IOUNTY OF SUFFOLK F„�5'il'1�✓li, 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 Office of Ecology has conducted -mentioned application, the 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 Enclosire � p (IA- Of f :OUIHOID TOWN COUNTY CENTER 4lANNING BOARD RIVERHEAD. N.Y. 1,'90, 11 'I' , •O rp o1 ai In 3• 'U Li IG � �i Iry��• � ii 1 J U �'� IU n r) - I J �1 (7 Iil ju Irll UJ C7 hl O (] 111 - Er it 1 i rl J II I i'I V. to r) J• rl ,", c y 13 1 Ell, iu li !1• !, i E N Ir ri I(. IL la 11 In In D it l i ID lE i, (J ii Ij ct ) f (I I IA I 1 ; U hJ q r In 1 ] (J W r1 1 �a 1 I I t �] a 2' (A W LJ LI I, In �a �a ,,. I. E . { o i I z" , (a r r' 2 f, U Id 1 (, 1 , (1 ( ' C1� 1 7 /7 1U rl q, U (( n, (� „ , `r. N I u 1 lu r �n h� rl f. Er �1 a<1 1, lJ ,. (� 11 IJ „ "7 'q W ( , I •• I ( p ' (C lu 1 ru I 1 (( 11 1 1 1I) �. 11 f'' Y �, N (,. J (1 1, I+ (t U (U ,' D IU �� (u 41 :`'�; :1 1� 11 h 1'I (-t rt 1 jI :r, 11 ,.,. I• 7' i .• O I1 /, IS f ) rt, it IU l; ,tl m W 2 u O 4: IU �.' IU I1 In 1 tl ttt ) ,O UI I,. iu rJ rl • (V 1', 1.1 I- [1 , 11 It o .. 1 n I rI •1; t '(t .� ,u lU - fl to n \ .) it !° !1 �((IIn]] II ' 1•' (, 1-' p, ; lu , y ' c ,. 1 . lu o .J tl Q I1 I f1. �1 W ) �, Eli Ili 3 r1 r 1 1 t'J ly° • 7 ] i, •7 rl '71 - ' 1' ) lJ ! „ In ! to In tr, it tl 6 9 ri t� ((I _ o I1 {J. Iii �' 3 t! f+ G ly 1.1 O v p I' , 11 I1 u• I,. In IJ t, , ft ,CI (1 (� n' .. . ( (00 I i i Fl �i t i i i rr n, u r u 111 iu —1 �i 1 U Er i� I C III 'i3 [ �� •C \ 11 in M— Pit (o f , ,. ,.l IJl ,• � IU I p.l N , ( 111 itIl 1 i ' 1 IU T I In In T. Cala: 3ZH�&r 3. J 5. SL*- -5c.... A.= Ce - .-� —.az ad�acanz are= •,`�' '(!•• u,d< a <l • TOUT-�- . b."d a wdf vim-/ e /... io... r..a�dlan0 ):IdC1`aC• eL=. - —r .CCC. - SiC. 00000 NM 0000000000 4> 0000000000000000 00 �0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 4 060 ° °6O6O0 °o6°0°00°° o 00000�c — — u •.�S,yu;L Z 0000000000c 600000 000o0 _ ti's 00000o00 v o00 � '�•+P.�• 6 0000 0000000000000 c(l : 000000 00000000000c :: , 00000 °00000000000� off. . t��eot 00000 600 0000000 4k .•� , 00. 04 co 0000000 0 0000000000000u u . ryo;+, '6 000000000°00000u 49 +•• )p0 00000000000000i 0 ', _ v�.;:0 )-00000000000 /� �/ 0000e Oo `n., - 000000 6 00 �. O000co par Poo 000000060 L11 ,./r/�tdFG •.::.` 000000000 �f �f. la 660666666 00/,401) Xey �-�•% _dam../, `- - a CV P� Y25 (Si:C./ 3.--•—..C_. -za acc ve Cr C:2 8 EC.Z-= e, ca=- . of cac_=ccv: f 1 � 1c=c ro./w / fires as 7ZZ-fT6 72Y-rrc r A41 s! A/r 5'07. Cin,./✓a/Gf U��'M ATA) /�/i G� C�ef,� / An+v,'�An gyroµ/ W1;,L OA I anaapc�pn J�. Af/u s/+ Smola - dar- �a��...�j. fl�Ple A,,/un, o%rc Win ru"rAL Sold<� s Zo7. 6/mac k o...f zk� w/ �Ot✓r pI T—ivl:-;�TJX..--. .c 4 10. =M _ S-aca _2; � CAI- 12. AI12. seec_ - CL CC:.c 14 . ....dancer-az, rare_ , or vu_aera�i� u=:ccHr ..s - - 1 • •.L.._ ..•G•._. Tip C.._ 71.c SLeicc1Prro,1 ri cC<.Pc J`n«d 6' eal� sous ts .w/co cr �/ An <f. c {nt {../M /76 .Si/G /r 6CA/fI4N A O�Jc� d Co Jr�t `j 6-41, 73r-+. ✓ yg7 < /-c4 c-,zw I >ye CAJ lO+..n..rJ�e.f.'« ✓J J�[/p.P�6 a.�..c :{;1 co -r-c d ! ,c%J�/ r� c✓ �G.'G.:r.� 76f . 15 f fe SG Ssc f/O4et/.4-,d J�iAJ -"C Co�c /ucl f CS/A/cr 6v�rcKJ rJ . Mr L alio rot d/w d C�YFnOt qaI /""% l" J/cu.cJ ,sv.d 5w.•c1 .K.oraels,�- /+ {> 7(er MAJr..c oA/ c.eo d/sn c/ f, 214 17,c 4 4-1 7r¢ ie-.,�dc...� 7//e t, � �t ,Fc.{.:c j .�r.w.a�� Af A �+�" fv.., �.Le,6 �' 6� �✓J/� q.ry 6rrt/, /<kl,,.,� .rt r/�, off„+..,.,, ! /ter. ✓ A _r__// /c'✓/C2¢,.( bcic<>/r 7�/e�/Pcr� .vcv >�a qc�{/vn. A. Jw774 {i-q �rr+. 77c 4-me jOPP'rr'r f /,,..e 6¢e.., /(J/e dna F�el•e // >a d �v+r:>< c� oc ccl� /� Cl /e crow;J v d re cC z4e nUIC_�v, �/^A...fc to /7 {fie S,'/c. TX,f d��e e'a/•mow ✓ 7L /d.5 r ,tact �f�Y and C.: = (c sc ssicn) //- r/1 es/�eCK HAJ'JAJ U.oic J a f' � e�. '' .orc..r a..C.c.� C.vi ACID cq � Jr 1..ecefJ.w, ,-e/%..di> c��<✓ .o p / aArJ wrt ASJ�✓�C� in �'G v c.'.r./ ///� c<"1 /1<s�iaJ�C��y r'A/-'/it!'ul6 .� /' C..r1 C�../1 a�,-/��77� ------------ 77 - ----- t r f lJ Jri �e o71 .t ��n A�r.f Y`lo; / lydG dy >`L Jrrti eJ �d /�� And �crnQ � fr .tCo J.aJ ,�.v/ 0.../pyn cj q,.d G�/%F`ar7! C.frpAV4fc�i.I/v/oa/Mars! ulc% /'.4� 'J '`7/� <.r/rte-cy Sayv,c AS o.�< ���r � �j c.•J�f,../ -9+ d c..o J.�. 1.dr. TXci ArcA .r/ -. 7/e /art fi {C /. nr / dr�Fc,-/Jr ,1,o, „r6. ��'F TV'•'�/ / +' /N/.J� Q V .4Q S/JnF p7 M..C� HG.fAie G•�� S�/�.p.. n J 7'1e.cerf. � c . w_=. �___-'_'- -- ie_= —ea , a _-_- `---_-- 3r:d - --- %_1- /azcce i _ AJ�/�OKC> /Y DIo�CG� .+yo�/ C�'M•ha /t A S•/I•n i'�Ga 7 Cle�.tl ✓/ sU �i7 / /cl�enl.., . rz n �✓/ CTed 7 /p'of ec� C.s. 6C G�e 7� Y /3 i:•r y Addd, �e Lley A+ ../j IT nedse ao, slae,o�a�r- .. � Le-+vc-r�ip.p / SG.SSu�firCQ s/.t�;fir` cFCf�4� �jip(+Le/ Sys�M)• . 4. .._„_ //O/�r!t c0� // (/ NJ 7,,, F b Narie T__io Name - J Nare m_-_= ca-.� xf 1!- � y�+ �r �# i°!, f'N �K �' ' .1} !'✓`]�(T� r\ .I.rt, 11? ���1��l�� , ��`✓'.�[1 i �� {��(1 � 1 1y'�.I X rl I YYY •f r„Y: : t' �1 �, , i �,� :•t i < }.,•�. / r �' 11 e .. I w il`S. <•,.... I All}AAAI C , ESP 7!+�5,•rE1 ,• �l IkA t�yf X1'1 A✓i}, 1^ 3' _ / I x r it r NUk `.7 ' ,� h}i`'f�1 Y �'f u r i S Y r ilt_ t' + ��'�'ytZ•'' n 'i{+�P�/ "��.. .4+F( • �qt#� W yam, r � 'r" {'•� � 1 4 �Y'v,k� T Irc� '�YV r w �,r� !r„-rtiJ'a�•�••�µ��yt(!. J rn iAT I F"'x,,:{' •,j,..h'ri"!"M�� "T^<v .. « .F , ..� *UNTY OF SUFFOLK Patrick Halpin SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OAVIO 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 throw h 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,( rPLANNING Charles Hamilton, NYSDECCOUNTY CENTERRIVERHEAO.N.Y. 11901 OARD Al 0 df JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZqRECEIVED BY ATTORNEY AT LAW SOU-HOLD i06111 FLANINIlNG BOARD P.O.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE,NEW YORK 1 1 959 (516)659-5766(DAY AND EVENING) SOVT`jOld �wJ N:J� I J e PC /•'/NOR SvQ OI VI iia..i r- 0 d Le 'T GA Z Z A A; pAM y UNP O'A•T t4'I 4ja /O i✓ C�tA,_ f3oAfzo AA /EM ErOfL (� Tl+f /V -1 OEC /-lrl� RFgvIKRo My J V R-V/F!JYtM1 -ro p 4 r t.L., 0J _f'4l 7/o .4 L W�p_ -1- f 7 f}R �cf} t9TeP pi 77� 0LOeLALL PPo6ored ,f Lcl: .; s :o O .f-4: l4e✓; e, 1 MAP. PLA Ao�;.tE F s CA. o f /1. 7 Tv 7 0 �ti ""�('-1-. i ✓ CD ✓.✓•c.41 I F+, ✓ 1AA (X1 �k Iboo = as -3— a � JOSEPH FREDERICK GAZZA RECEIVED 8f SOUTNOW TOWN P( MING BOARD ATTORNEY AT LAW AUG ., 1 1wP.O.BOX 969 3 OGDEN LANE QUOGUE•NEW YORK 1 1959 (51 6)653-5766(DAY AND EVENING) SOVT�OI� vV+J I "�NiJ� I�w J - 87 �e. /111No2 Sv 1301 vi •ioN O 00 Ze Trier; ldc /� GA2ZA A— ,DAM y wjP jE5Ai•f i'sl � I O j Ce A,4- iso Aa o M /E /K CYOfL Ty-r- Al Lf o ,Ec /-�A REp✓I ,eRa P^ y -sv2vkr0or• -ro pC, r- +4� wt+c,e.--�' ., /4 O✓ 'f'� 7�o A C (N1-+LA-0 Z:7-� v'o-'T F n","✓ r a F f} tFcA AT% P M7 ov/FtiALL pp- ord40 X'Ad: vn: r ;o �I /O .Ce •� rl r a7 p yr fir• �•J' A fA pLCA � /�Ov; vlE /c S CA. r$E f g*t- P TO 7 *k Itoo - -.;L 19 Depo.jz� tom/wosn yc PD T cry `. LD S 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, drew Lettieri, Joseph F. Gazza, d 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, pI� �./ �,�, BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. , CHAIRMAN 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 (Grundbesitzerl - landowner in German) Bernice Lettieri Andrew Lettieri Lettieri and Grundbesitzer COUNTY OF SUFFOLK � OOT 7 185 PETER F.COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DAVID HARRIS.M.D..M.P.H. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSIONER To: io<✓^/ �'` sourf�o<[� Date �p - 3—`d5� i"��.S�dw/i.✓6 aefiR.17 S3oQS �'1.9i.✓ 7Z� ,CE71A/E.� d-6R�D$ES/7�cEZ Re: SuB�ivisie-v Dear///g. 22 �R' ,�.r.��7 D�/���� concerning the above We are in receipt of your letter date d referenced project. 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 Other: SEE co�/i�E.✓TS 7. It appears that the project can be served by: Sewage Disposal System Sewer System and Treatment Works Subsurface Sewage Disposal System(s) Other: b� 548-3318 COUNTY CENTER RIVERHEAD,N.Y. 11901 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 shoull not undertake to construct any water supply or disposal system without Health Department approval . Other portions of the Suffolk County Sanita y Code also apply to commercial development such as Article XII. The Lead Agency is requested / to forwarrd/a copy of this form to the applicant w th its findings. To /less a4ee, /^ej,e&TcQ c%re To lj�� /.t/aTe� rox T�o�'! �✓�i.c� /S i7e/ !'oysc?'ue /idG T T,re, �Ji'i�or Tu..c/s i.� `s 74 se✓aJ4 sa/ sysT-. s . SG a .S is v .%i� T 57-�✓e/I Msu/r`sl n/r s,Z>A6C �eri>s, T� Further comment may be provided upon completion of the application review. Name Phone S- 3375— ATTORNEY AT LAW 2��`i�t� 37 GARDINERS LANE HAMPTON BAYS.NEW YORK 1 1946 pp 516-728-1686(DAY AND EVENING) 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 R ' ght-of Way improvements in connection with our proposed subd ' vision . It has been our intention since our purchase of the various parcels at Dam Pond , first and foremost , to prote t 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 FormerCove 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 CODY of letter attached) . I am opposed to the creation of two a--cess road systems side by side which will be the result , sh uld your Board require Mr . Lettieri and me to construct a road s stem 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 s veral options are being left open . I believe if your Board could approve our subdivision request while precluding the use of o r lots for building purposes until the road-access-improveme t issue has been finalized , the best interest of planning wou d be served . I have hope that when Mr . Joel can inspect a map 31howing how our property is going to be developed , that is ap roved by your 45 �a��ifi �2e�'uo% ova ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 GARDINERs LANE HAMPTON BAYS,NEW YORK 1 1946 516-728-1886(DAY AND EVENING) c Ont Board , he will consent to allowing us to use hi� road system in part for proper financial consideration , in order that both our properties will .be benefited with more foliage End 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 , e V " I[---— Jose Frederick Gazza ANdrew io i cc : file encl . UU ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 GARDINERs LANE HAMPTON BAYS, NEW YORK 1 1946 516-728-1886 (DAY AND EVENING) i;ay 22., 19£35 T`r. Alliam Joel c/o 7rank T,anagement Inc . 375 North Proadway Jericho, Tow York ?e : Vacant lands at :est Tarion, Tiew York )ear !r. ,Joel , ?enearch that I have conducted at the Suffolk County Clerk ' s Mi.cc indicate that on April_ 2 , 1985 you purchased the Cove ^^•e.ch '?states property at bast ;'arion which said parcel of yn acres + is adjacent to land, owned by the undo sinned and Tyr. ncire:f i.ettieri , all as :.shown on map photocopy attached hereto . Par 1"n(1 is overurown farm land of about 35 acres total with concidprahl_e Frontage on Dam fond. 'T. Letticri and I have for several. ,years been attempting to obtain permission to utilize the Cove Beach Estates access road to pr. ovido a bettor access to our property as shown in "W ", mal attached ) . 4e have offered to share in the cost of brim;inn in electricity, improving_ the road and or an outright cash payment for use of the "Red" road. Possibly a land ex- change 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 am available to meet with ,you at the property at ,your convenience . Please advise X12 (6l i8c� Joseph i'reder ck Gazza .4- cc : Irving D. U ter, Attorney coo i)royer and Traub 101 Park Ave. New York !,ity, iiew York 1.0173 cc : Philip Ramone cc : Andre Lettieri ?aWle Ridge Road 48 Cayuga Road Pound Riaqn, T!ew York 11753 Yonkers, Pew York S[_H, D \wry 2 2S _T4 �f L.D. 91 ° Id.D.60 .... .., u.q,.�.. / `•/ C. 69RA(tI PL' 65 16f1r1 l.u��.I :•f�' 11 16P C 1// O 24 .l t(' /• 46.1 AI<I \ 16 \ iP1� I Oom F"d / 1 \ ` u uf.�t•4� J .... \\ \ �.,, 1 F r W. u �.2.1411• N ^� n:o:,[_ \ :o c T s J vl—G �•—� 0.9 Afc1 Al< Ak) •A 22 P9 •5 "� y - ------------------- ry bbY NO \ .E rf J Ol \ e\ IR fEE PACfI NO FOO .CCL 2.c \1<1 L \Z\ Z E SfE SEC.<NO G31'i5 Opl NO SEE \ 9EC NO OL ' \ SCE �AOn i 15 3 P/ \2y'V c`\ • �� y p 21�,..$0 � Ai • � � 0� V l� • In'.• 12 �b A1[I 25P \IAII 25 ••[ 1 '•V, � 1., 2 el RF'. z6 to it _•_�•_ A I N4. IG I rte' 1 5 5 1 _ la 20Plcl 4 2.3A i0 �4 l[I \1,1� 5Al<I a2PibPl[I \ 4.2 P S A A� • PVG \44.4 5 ti EPST I p\cl \ /� e cUFFO(..t(n PLA NI OeY D T01" O SOU ; I LD Sk- TY �1 IA I 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 Gazz 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 specifi ations in order to accommodate the prospective traffic and pr vide adequate access for emergency vehicles for each of the 3 lots which would be created. Very truly yours, ovwkt ( ( W3 NNETT ORLOWSKI , JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary • TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PHOPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER I STREET VILLAGE I DISTRICT ( SUB i LOT Z1, - - - - _ � ? T Ow-3ER N� E AC S W REAGE - - - -- - -- � _ TYPE OF BUILDING —rt Gn RES, SEAS, VL. FARM L COMM. IND. CB. MISC. LAND WID. TOTAL DATE REMARKS �SZ—&LD' �C i�+.1/ �' �`'L'` ToCI �i1 -. cUu•�(� ztSQ?r.�:zrt?_ °CviE] Tfl12f L-93"7 { I'-U i AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEWNORMAL� BELOW ABOVE j Farm Acre Value Per Acre Value Tillable 1 - - - Tillahle 21 - - - - Tillable 3 I - - Wcodland Swampland Brushland House Plot �FFO(k P D ..c T � D S Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 11, 195 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 Lettieri and Grundbesitzer, located at East Marion, tax map no. 1000-22-3- 22. 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 ORL022, J . , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANN NG BOARD By Diane M. Schultz, Secretary enc. cc: Department of Health Services 141tH(9184) yq 11 ROJECT I . NUMBER 11 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ' DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. Applicant/sponsor 3. Project Name fllvox#L, L6r7iER; 4 CJ0ZWVc,3'E-rirZ" SpN_ MAP foK Lrmjroe Lf( 9VMOCrF;7ZAf CvRP, 3. Project location: Municipality 7p W/✓ SOIT BOLO County or XVG;,LJ,< 4. Is proposed action: ® New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration 5. Describe project briefly: PROFbsEp 'THREE Lor A4/Ao0L St-'RDiV7✓ioA/ II 6. Precise location(road intersections, prominent landmarks,etc. or provide map) P140 Nvr RT. 2S /900 Fr 6/0 X7Alc r oAo 9A-'T- MA2?oAl N Y. /o00 - OZZ- 03 - 027- 7. Amount of land affected: Initially 6• 3 acres Ultimately acres 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? ® Yes ❑ No If No, describe briefly �i 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? III ® Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Parkland/open spade ❑ Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval,orf Wine, now or ultimately, from an other governmental agency state or I V 8 8 V ocal)? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency(s)and permit/approvals S01/ "VL4s Taw// PLAN✓1.�9 QOARm Sv FfplLc Co VNry pear, ol= H£AL704 SERV rt$J' 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 I, 13. As result of proposed action will existing Permit/approval require modification? ❑ Yes ® No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF My KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor e: DRQ{./ L� ;ER,' GsQVA+V 4.ESiTZ/Ep CpR '7 Date: N ` Signatur `r; ' • t Tosfi R F 5Az7-19 - PRfJvrAlr7) .' > If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the `' t \. Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment "i =n �M4 OVER T � ;s LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 September 19, 1985 Mr. az F.Joseph p 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, R. , CHAl`RMA 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 s ince 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 doss � LsU 9XAC-r LOCA-T7041 (D1,qWY,51oN15 ,5- sJ Qc �?G.IAJ. 91� 40, I g8,go0 VwN ONMAP 7�rlc� IIs iy- , APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT To the Planning Board of the Town of Southold: The undersigned applicant hereby applies for (tentative) (final) a�proval 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 MAP Fol LE iER; Ar ............uKoBErfrzEK .....RM! ............ .................... .......................... . 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 ...0)3.7.`f............. Page ........... ..... On /MAY, 20 "� 19H3 Liber ........................ Page Liber . ...... ................. Page Liber . ....................... Page ............... .. .... Liber ........................ Page ......... ...... . . ..... n ..... . as devised under the Last Will and Testament of .... ............ .. ...... .... or as distributee ........................... .............................. ......................... .......I.... ........ .............. . ... ... 5. The area of the land is (Vc 3....... acres. 6. All taxes which are liens on the land at the (late hereof have be n paid,eeeeept ..,,,.... ...... .... 7. The land is encumbered by . ............ ..NONE .. .... .. .. . . .. .... .. . ... . . ................. ... . mortgage s) as follows: (a) Mortgage recorded in Liber . .. .. ... . . . . . . Page . . . .. .. ..L. . . . . .. . in originals mount of $. .. . . .. .. . . .. . unpaid amount $ . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . held b ..... . ... .. .. . address ... ...... .... ..... . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .... .. 4. .. . . ... ... ......... . . . (b) Mortgage recorded in Liber . .. . . .... Pagc . .. .. . . . . .. . . .I 'I. . . . . ... in original amount Of . . . ... . .. . . .. . unpaid amount $... . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . held bY ... .... .. ...... . ..... . ...... .. .... . address ..... ....... ..... .. .. .................... 7 i (c) Mortgage recorded in Liber ....... . . .. .. . Page . . . .... ......... in original amount of ... .... . . .... . unpaid amount $. .. . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . hgld by . .. .. .... ............. ......... ............ . address 8. There are no other tencumbrances or liens against the land ex�cpt .C'Sq. ..w'nTN /. ..Af...: flu w.✓,..O.!�... VE Y.i..I�. .. ................. 9. The land lies in the following zoning use districts ..QIr� ,.!?L........A '80 ............................... .......... . . .......... .. .. .. ............................ 10. No part of the land lies under water whether tide water, strea , pond water or otherwise, ex- cept . ....SHoRE4vE,,, of DATA OOAJD ... ........................ . 11. The applicant shall at his expense install all required public imf rovements. 12. The land (tri) (does not) lie in a Water District or Water Supply District. Name of Dis- trict, if within a District, is .......A.fl/q......... .... .... .... ... ........................ . 13. Water mains will be laid by . .... .. .. .......... .. .. .. . .. .... .. .................. . and (a) (no) charge will be made for installing said mains. 14. Electric lines and standards will be installed by ..... ...41 ,CO•,,,_,•, ,•••,,_... l•i••nes.•• -•••••••••••••••••............ and (a) (s) charge will be made for installing said 15. Gas mains will be installed by ......?YM. . . .. .. ........ ...... ............................... 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" heretoto sliow same. 18. There are no existing buildings or structures on the land whit t 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 prow of title as required by Sec. 333 of the Real Property Law. (PEE f.Fy .F• 7,:e4 .7._r.. o">, A77Atl-et) 21. Submit a copy of proposed deed for lots shovring all restric ions, covenants, Jetc. Annex Schedule "D". � •. r 22. The applicant estimates that the cost of grading and required public improvements will be $. . ...9... as itemized in Schedule "E" hereto annexed and requests that the maturity of the Performance Bond be fixed at......Q..... . . years. The Perfort ance Bond will be written by a licensed surety company unless otherwise shown on Schedule "F". .. yL .. ..., 19. .E R. E.b! .. ... . .,iER; RtnuD(�ler;rzE[ Gt DATE 7.....t!�. .... B . NqK LE . ......4..�.............. . 19$1- (Name of Applicant) By . ....... ... . . . .... .. .... ..... ..... . 7 Sr6nu v� CovE grcsN/orr N,M• (Signature itle 3 <rl �/LFOFRI[/. yAzzA -/Kf �..',1ArdNeal LANs A'Amt7• QAY! Ny .... ... .... ......... . (Address) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF . .....Sv ��-� 41t ti � tl, q yvir s ; . On the . ...... .. ......... day of......411111110 . .......... .... 19.0 .., before me persatiillyt camf AmeiF.Cy ...L'F.77rf ER!.. .. ....... . . to me known to be the i idividual described in atUtho executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that . . . . executed the same. * GRAOM WA NOT &6 01 MM YM TwoEghu ftrdr X I Vo�taryublic STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF . . ... ss: ��v TI 7�y sal y On the . .. ... ..... . day . .. . .... ... of . . .. . . . .... .... 19 8�. ., before me personally came ,•orEiH FitE0Et221. .. GAzZ/J ,•',. to•'me known, who being by me duly sworn did de- pose and say that ....jqg. ... resides at No. . .3.7.. ....GAROfveRs C A.vE . .. .. ... .............. MITaN /3/7Yl .. .. .... . .. . . . that H9 .. .. .. .. .. . is the . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . of . .. ..��.•.Ruivo,f31cSiTz R. .. ..CP. 7 . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrum •nt; that . .. .AO F... knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed by order of the boardf directors of said corporation. and that . . . . .176r. .. . signed . ..Y!-!'. .. .. . name thereto I like order Notary Public S IRLEY A.DUFFEY VOTARY IUBLIC,StateofNew York No.O1D 4715277,Suffolk Coupgy. GRUN*ITZER CORPORATION and ANDR7W LETTIERI 7 STT2LING COVE GREENPORT, NEW YORK July31„ 1985 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Re: Map for Grundb .sitzer Corporation and Lettieri Gentlemen: 1000-022-03-02 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 Way area only. (3) No new drainage structures or alteration of existing structures are proposed. ��C „p..,;, Y. Yours truly, w 0:-V q " Grundbesitzer o tion Jose a rick zza-President " -Tr J Andrew Le t CONSULT S.[U' taip,ln,nil S.Ic UceJ. a'idi Ci, YOUR LAWYER BEFORE SI ING THIS INSTRUMENT-ITHISSINSTRUMENT Al ' 'SHOULD BE USED B( n Y Y LAWYERS ONLY. 1)4 'IU r� THIS INDEN RE, made the �U day of MAY nineteen hundred and eighty three „ BETWEEN Grundbesitzer Corp. , a domestic corporation having its office at 37 Gardiners Lane, Hampton Bays, Suffolk County, New York 11946 as to 50% undivided interest and John A. DiSpirito residing at 1 Hudson Harbor, Edgewater, NJ 07020 as to 25% undivided interest and Andrew Lettieri of 48� Cayuga Road, Yonkers , NY 107 as to 25% undivided interest. party of the first part, and Grundbesitzer Corp. , a domestic ccration having its office at 37 Gardiners Lane, Hampton Bays, Suffolk Court V, York 11946 as to a fifty (50%) percent undivided interest and Andrew Le tieri as to a fifty (50%) percent undivided interest. Z 99() ECE'VED party of the second part, [R$EAL ESTATE IC) 0 I WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration ofN 14 1983 i Ten Dollars and other considerations NSFER 1AX i 'UFFOLKg lawful money of the United States, Lu paid paid by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party IIOf the second part, the heirs or I II Isuccessors and assigns of the party of the second part forever, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and intprov�n eats thereon erected, situate, L L lying and being EmVim at East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, being bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of the hentinafter descr promises which point - is where the division line between the hereinafter descrihDd premises and lands now or formerly of Joseph Boken intersects the high water nark of Dam Pond said point also being distant the following 13 courses and dist es from the point where the division line between lands now or formerly of ttieri & Di it ------ and lands now or formerly of Cove Beach Associates inters tSthe northerly side of Main Road 1. North 25 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds west, 242.90 felt; 2. South 63 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds west, 23.10 fee:; 3. North 26 degrees 45 minutes 40 seconds west, 387.42 feet; G 4. North 25 degrees 15 minutes 40 seconds west, 598.78 feet; I l/y 3 5. north 27 degrees 49 minutes 50 seconds west, 111.96 feet; 6. North 27 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds west, 71.14 feet; 7, North 32 degrees 12 minutes 10 seconds west, 144.10 feet; 8. South 81 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds east, 312.85 feet; 9. North 25 degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds west, 608.25 feet; 10. North 89 degrees 43 minutes 30 seconds east, 520.88 feet; 11. South 89 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds east, 450.01 feet; 12. South 0 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds nest, 9.0 fee ; 13. South 87 degrees 08 minutes 50 seconds east, 84.06 feet; to the point or place of BEGINNING. RUNNING thence through and along Dam Pond, the following 4tie-line courses and distances: 1. 1 1. South 87 degrees 08 minutes 50 seconds east, 12.0 feel, 2. South 66 degrees 28 minutes 50 seconds east, 900.56 f t; t 3. South 28 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds west, 175.07 f t; 4. South 74 degrees 20 minutes 40 seconds west, 534.70 feet; THENCE North 18 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds west, 462.0 fLet; THENCE north 23 degrees 30 minutes 50 seconds west, 239.69 feet; to the point or place of y BEGINNING. 1 I � TOGETHER with the right of ingress and egress with others a�ross a 10-foot right of way adjoining the premises to the nearest legal open road. TITLE INSURANCE . OLLCY i THE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY .IM PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY THE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, and PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corpora on, jointly and severatly, together herein called "the Company," in consideration of the payment of its . charges for the examination of title and its premium for insurance,'i ores the within named insured against all loss or damage not exceeding the amount of insurance stated herein and in addition the costs and expenses of defending the tide, tate or interest insured,which the insured shall sustain by reason of any defect or defects of title affecting the premises described in Schedule A or affecting the interest of the inaured the as m herein set forth, or by reason of unarketability of the title of the ins ed d ore the Premises, or by reason of liens or incumbrances affecting title at the date hereof, or by reason of any statutory lien for labor or material furnished prior to the date hereof which has now gained or which may hereafter gain priority over the interest insured hereby, or by reason of a lack of access to and from the premises, excepting all 1 sand damage by reason of the estates, interests, defects, objections, liens, incumbr ces and other matters set forth in Schedule B, or by the conditions of this policy hereby incorporated into this contract, the loss and the amount to be ascertained in thematmer provided in said conditions and to be payable upon compliance by the insured with the stipulations off said coconditions, and not otherwise. ✓n y�/ifneSS %getreo p j the companies have caused e.ir corporate names and seals to be hereunto affixed their duly authorized officers. PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY THE TITLE GUA ANTEE COMPANY pRA BY r 11 T BY r rn dent .fir. ��.... Q �.. ��.......... 7 Attest ....�,�y • � At7es OIll .•aD=.y Secre7ary T Secret Validating Y' or Agent ..... MEMBERS MFM Y()AK BONED tx WU UWMWW,,,[n8 I 1 3 N.�ra. y �.w.nef..v I mortgsee. ~ `nate prior liens or incumbra�iienr t set forth in Schedule B.----� (e) Whem the insured shall have negottated a I be made on (e) When liability has been d ely fixed in accordance with the the security of a mortgage on the insureds estate�terest in the conditions of this po/icy, the I*damage shall be payable within premises and the tide shall have been rejected by the proposed lender thirty days thereafter, Name of Insured Policy No. T1281-3609 GRUNDBESITZER CORP. 50% ANDREW LETTERIERE 25% JOHN A. DiSPIRITO Amount of Insurance $ 66 ,680 .00 258 Date Of Issue 1/14/82 The estate or Interest Insured by'this policy IS fee 'simple`vested In the insured by means of a deed made by Anthony MastrOIaWni,- I;ublic Administr'aior of Estate of Joseph Boken, Sr, to the INSURED dated 1/14/82 , recorded 1/20/82. SCHEDULE ,.B„ The following estates interests, defects, objections to title, liens and Incumbrances and other matters are excepted from the coverage of this policy.- , f ' 1. Defects and incumbrances arising or becomlf g' f}B site bol t1Y po 41 except`as hpreln provided. 2 Consequences o/the exercise'and en/oic a en a eM Oab governmental war or police powers over the premises. {; � t '�tr �; Inc u ' 3 Any la ws regu/atlona or ord)nances finclut{ to ltetl o on no', /` " ' panty-subdiNslon or lm rovement of the .g f$and envfromm �talprotectlon)astouse,occu- P adopted orlmpoaed byal{}t°�g'overnmental b dy,or the effect of an noncom. pbance with or any violation thereof. >�. ..� > ° -rias y 4. Judgments against the insured or estatesdelecta`"obfecd I ns ilgh"r/ncumbrancels created, suffered, assumed or agreed to, by or with the privity o/the Insur4. ' • ':.� t 3 ^„ Sr3�-d 5. Title to an property y '�' `� y pro ert beyond the lines of thBpin} BgtiP fo as.wi hln"orrightsor easements In any abutting streets,roads, avenues,lanes, ways or waterways,or the r{ H(fo inafn'fa'fn{here7n5VetlIf tunnels,ramps,orany/otherstructure or improvement, unless this policy specifically provides that S-U6 tfitles,rights,of easements are insured. Notwit standing any provisions in this paragraph to the contrary, this policy, unless otherwise excepted, Insures the ordinary rights o/�ccess and egress belonging to abutting owners. 6. Title to any personal property, whether the same be attached to or used/n connection with saip premises or otherwise. A. Rights of tenants, if any. B. No title is insured to any land lying below the high water line of Dam Pond (Long Island Sound) as the same now exists or formerly existed) C. Rights of the People of the State of New York in those portions of premises now or formerly under the waters of Dam Pond (Long Island Sound) D. Rights of the Federal Government to enter upon and ,take possession without compensation of lands now or formerly lying below water mark of Dam Pond (Long Island Sound) the high 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". SCHEDULE"B"OF THIS POLICY CONSISTS OF = SHEET(S). 2 THE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ....,.R,- M Policy No. T1281-3609 - SCHEDULE.1"W (continued) F. Premises under examination is an interior parcel w4ch does not abut on a :street- or highway. i.r,No easement'.of rright'I,of;way_for access to and from,said,.premises .to a public stree� ,ior,-highway is insured.; , r c? ' G. Any state of facts an inspection of the premises mjght show. H. Debts against,thenEstate of Joseph,.Boken; a/k/a Jo 3 Boken,.,Jal Bukin,:deceased,,,-butrcompanye.insures;;that--,same will- not befcollected out of the h ereindescribed premises.,. 71 I. New York--Estate-Tax .against Joseph Boken,va/k/a Jo Boken,,,.Jal Bukin,deceased,�but,;company.insures- that:- same wil not. be, collected out of: the: herein described premises. . J. Federal Estate Tax against Josep _ B fin - &/k/a Joe Boken, Jal Bukin, deceased, but; com a wil not be ;collected out of the:.herein :descr' K. Vacant landi,: as,shown les,ieC vering, premise's and more; dated;71/10/ • �zre � ';air . I 3.1 s 1 THE TITLE GUARANTEE'COMPAWand PIONEER'NATIONAL TITLE INSUAANCE'COMPANY Policy No. T1281-3609 SCHEDULE "A" The premises in which the insured has the estate or interest covered by this policy ALL, °that , pieccertain lot' ,• p ` p , e 'or arceT,of"land "'situate , lying; and being at".East Marion,:,.Town of Southo d,..County , .,of .Suffo11k i:State, of New York, being bounded a d described as follows BEGINNING. at;-the=:northwest ,corner of the herei af terI,described premises, which p`ointis ;where ,the division lin between the hereinafter';describ'y , premises and lands now o formerly ,of ' Joseph•,Boken,•.intersects ttie -high water mark of4Dam Pond said : oint,'' also bein distant`;the: follotain ` 13 ."cour es;and ',P g .. q distances -:from the,,point''where ,ihe: division ,li e .between 'lands , now or ,formerlyIof ,Lettieri< & Dispriti and lands now or ;' formerly of Cove Beach ,Associates intersects t e`northerly side of Main .Road: 1. - North 25 degrees- ''� ds Wes , ,.242 .90, feet; 2 . South 63..degree µ�* .y i "ids west , 23.10 feet; 3. North 26 degre ds.,Wes , `387.42 . feet; 4. North 25 degre �e ds- Wes , •598:78. feet; 5. ,North 27 degre u ds West,. 111.96 'feet; 6. North27degre ( isiYiut` ds West , 71.14 feet; 71 . North 32 .degre 1 �h"u " >nds Wes 8. South 81 degre , .144.10,,feet; . g nds Eas , 312.85' feet; 9. 'North, 25;;degre nds.Wes ',, 608:25 'feet; :10. : . North ,89:,degrest ' ond&,.Eas , .520..88-feet; 11. South , 89' d seconds Eas , ''450:01"feet; '12. . `South,, O;,degrees, minu es. 0`. seconds` West, 9.0 feet; 13. South 87 degrees 08 minutes 50 seconds East, 84.06 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. RUNNING THENCE thru and along Dam Pond, the following 4 tie-line courses and distances; 1. South 87 degrees 08 minutes 50 seconds East, 12.0 feet; 2. South 66 degrees 28 minutes 50 seconds East, 900.56 feet; 3. South 28 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds West, 175.07 feet; 4. South 74 degrees 20 minutes 40 seconds West, 534.70 feet; THENCE North 18 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds W at, 462.0 feet; THENCE North 23 degrees 30 minutes 50 seconds W st, 239.69 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. THET TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY _._ Il,Q1N(x fF1111�1TT[pFiSS 'Mv ate- _ _ l Do4qAC4 yrs _LWAff- Gor �_ — Tim_ Z.O. ANq TtftZ. CL)L-OV- _ _ 57�ZU�.D_s7�ET _ _ 7� -lnl W4 c:F i_or Z \ _ _ ''o--�� P,POPOSED � \\ �SE�✓c�i .��2E-! _ -_ A / T TTL E Mo / /,28/ - 36 0 9 0/5T/000 -SEC 022-gLC 3 - PCG 22 /OT U4L. d AGUE PO/.VT PCl2CEG " ✓ATE R I i C� 2A/JTEEDTD ' I / Go - JOSEPU FCEOE.E/CG'G4-7Z,1 ESQ 1 i \ 36 T t I �TLc GUAeA TEE GO \ 33576G . 7 - - -- JOHN D/SP/�/To\ N 1 COVE — - - � 'P�EAGH E ed5e 427,3 e \ AZ 69° 43' 30"E` 520,88 — — — — - — — — - 5.89•-05 '40"E, 450.0/ a __ 284.59' Haos� ND 9.0' SEPTIC TANK LEp CAIING \ I V p 1 N �' \ 90 Pours I o r ID L �. 'do 6L'u 6EfITL h \ STR EE T TYPICAL LOT- LA`(ovT FOP- Iva FoSEP-TIC 7-ANK All f Lei e=zoe Ess i5;t �T"n<� 5.5 $t POOL SYSTEM I _ o / zee zP 5 I i U �/ f GZUUD 8E5%r ti \ : 5 _ G4ADE PLgL✓ 0 SEC7Ion/ a 13' f I \ s f;,r•CRC, _ 5 °� cti 3 / i m GmE °° r S. f/8/6T r W � sfHOLE e°— 3 TE RESUL75 ND n EYP/cAAPO � TYP/ C L \ � � FLEv 5S \ - �/I C- Ok'O/L/4Q 5,L-1071C TANK EAcH/n/G P oo L - N / ---.�e Q--- <//� i WA 7,=/Z 0 MIND \ n Gr and WATER WCL° SUFFOLK Co. Surfac[ °00 \ COUJGOL l✓IONUNEMT ' obey/oced;r, I\ a•. H�ta M. /0- /243 56P.M- f�aSE pro°f 57ry ' (Min ) � \ o"v ,U,Y, I L'TE 25 PumJ < � pL u dat4etr I ✓-Grol und TWaf42er 60/anK�i2/ \ \ \��\ N a'J��./3\ �� ��N� �i1 F lI�i�ET��1DLIo go' o 2rI — ' // p 1 �1 7YPICAL WELL INSTALLATIon! m � � 1 \ \\ \ RECEIVED BY \ c. v\ 50111HOL� TOWIV 'rltirINING 60P,I10 r pt onre NG /S/qNa MINOR SUBDIVISION SouN11 � I LET- TIERI & GFuMoBcSi_ TzE R- 1 \ L<I/VOS z �\ Id5-I�\ c 9b4 1i S/ 7 -14 T.C- 0 JfkK5-DEVEL OPE2s ANDREW LETTIE0.k _ AT ELJST MlJf7/ON r \C 7 STERLING COVE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD� \ \ GRVNDI3FSITZER CORP. ' \ Nt� O ` SC42E: = /00 _ _ 1 37 GAROINERS LANE \N SEO LBAY`sp4` NArMPTON BAYS N.y 11946 f5A) 7ZO-1896 Pa. o N 5('ate H'gLVALl . L5 4 \ SUBDI VI SIol.1 DATA \ gZ.0192 NCa ^/ons \ A°� -y t MAY I on Q L00 . / Eai _ \ OTALAREA 6.3 Ac \ \—�_,� r'53,rx `rr1 A'o, 2950" OPQ- TATALNa. OFLOTS' 3 � - BVILDING 2onlE A•8o �" �—NYS- RTE. 25 rAo, rr.wy 1 LY 1 �OA_�---- SEWAGE WP t S P o S A L P FA C K I Ti p S V -\ i PasTAL DISTRICT f -ti ����4l,ll OF ALL LOTS COMPL`f WITI.{ TGE F,ed.(/ BAYLES FIRE DISTRICT — _— HeAL rw. AREAS S-9 FT) cll S- TGE IT14E OS ANc RE OvIRE RK ENTf 110,60X.v K�N.>i 0980 ( c MAN,�nn NYS RTE 2S) �O7 / 8/ 000 Sy Fr t Ot- SVFFOI K COUNTY BOA Rp ' ICEY MAF LOT 2 93000 Sq c7 7t /✓ Y, L/C OZ95o_ scME 1" =600' Pec P-02ED LDT ,3 /oo 000 sQ Fr t ci FOP JOSEPL/ F.ZEDE.2/CK AZZO /o q /922 .0 / \ I T TL F No 0 9 O/sr/000 -srco2z-gLe 3 - PCZ, 22 I I { 1 I 6.9t AC.C'E /'<l/ 17' P/J,E'GEG 1 I \ LoJ J¢ /a)'SS' I GU4.PAUTL-ED Tp . \dA-Fr R I d 35 ,+ ✓o5c,/ .i FrEoeeLGc G47Z14 �5Q LnT i ^` u %TL.=GU0.2AnlTEE CO LI,(/DQE K/ L ET T/E 2/ ✓dH.�/ D/SG/2/To � \ N3s576(. , 7 � 3� r l1 �I. - „•G'�vG' - - �Y-S4 CL/ JII ✓OPz I \ E24j848R3 / \ N. 89° .4J ' 30"E SD.BE • ` 40' E, 45'D.D/ _ 284.57 -'' i 1 HotJSE- � 1 7 SEPT"OL'IC TANK 1 SE A ' 19 5'MNa 7MIN 90 `P ou G I jp o ° n Sp,ev. o m r \� — ChD / e� I --G zM IFC7eU �fITLEc \ G.9 a ALeEf r \ JTREET o� E1T a' L u J. TYPICAL Lor LA`(ou ( Fo - SEIT IC TANK �� _ $[ POOL SYSTEM o / f 6ZuuD8 5%rzce do cJ cJ � O=v I r I U L•� G GR,AVF COVMER' PLA/✓ I'M,d D=e as I o O S' e 9ti 2'MAx �. _ h ° oda I - SFGTION a GkA DE TEST HOLE 31 U RESULTS 900 yat_ /'yP7c.4L TYP/ CA L SEPTlc TANK L6^ACH/NG P CIO </ wa rt- z a a 2.s sv' D GRnurL ' Ground �GVFR � y „rpu � SUFFOGk �o _ _. su,fuie \ j j /' T0S X00 \ couTGOL AOmVvH4'E r--,, - 1-1 • Pump ob�p/a ted sn + v, 8.28 SGRM. F�stp,oafsl�,cru.e /O- /24305 i Bsp� 0 � 3 X11 >'Oroond Wefe� A TI��lN7 40 'IBin. dip ° l/'te, beano m `�' � 6 ?11 ; nl TYPICAL WELL IAISTALLRTIDn) �N \ \ 2 � r \ Q 1 \ I �n f MINOR 5UBDM510 �4111 LntiG \ 77 LSLANQ � � I 1 I fKl %,X, ° ~ l .I r ` L�i.._ I I E 1 3 �`• IAy.l4 3 3h�'/� . z \ \ AII � OWn1ER5 -DEVEL oPE2s \ `�\t-I1 ` TE- AT EAST ST M.lJRION ANDREW LEMT it \/\ TOWN OF SOUTNOLD 7 STERLING GaVE GREENPb0.r NEW voRK \ � �\ `'0~ � SUFE, CO,, \ G 2UND13E 51T2E2 GoRP. 37 GARDINERS LANG WAYdPTON BAVS- N'-/. 11546 (94) 728.1886 \ ti State M�g ' P. DI ' RND / SUBVI SIo1.1 DHTf{ East p � / \ TCTALAREA 6.3 AO o \ � 'O•�'z TOTAL NO. OF I.O'TS 3 I �j�pG TME NfATER. SJppLY ANS 13VILDING 'LOrJE. A•80 ''n "-" _ N,y,S, RrE 25 OL a2� RDAQ - t�23/u0/C97E5 A/Y-S. D. E. C. OP ALL z+ SP osAL FAcrLli-It' s U pnSYAL D, STie:T Q _+i •�- — VIAI,II" Q/B� ,✓ �OC9T/0.�5 ALONG 04' qLl l0'T !or.wpL.4 W:tiF{ };,t � i-/,UL 4.I VLES a \� FIRE OISTRICT �c(1 \�f S.'10R c� L/.V� LOGATE� T'A,N liRfo-C .� ANP RE']'/IRE a4 Era'� q �'o BOX 3E3 AREAS �Sq FT) o= `eus Sir�=o1 K CaunrrY goAap l9. k19 C/,UaL`'✓uL.y 1988 o� 4EFlLT )A, /y 21 0v 71n/.;; L/98o l'7NIN,pono (NYS R1E 2S� 107 / 8/ o00 $� FT !' AL N L/c CL�Som rt ' KaY MAA LOT Z 9300° SQ ET F',E'E P�i1•CED FDP J05EON F2EDE.0/CK' GAZZO /O JAN /982 SCAE l° =(00 LDT 3 /oo 00- Sp FT +_