HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-15.-9-11 Approved 1984 Terminal Bldg.'DATE:: JAN. 2(, HD84
GC~LE: I"-- 20'
NO: ~55- 198
.71
O~
\ \
¸75
~ I
I ii / I I
/I / / /
/ /
I I I I
I
/ i / I / /
I I I / /
/ I / / /
~ / II il/ /
i/ I 1
/// / '
/ ~ !
I / I i
~ ,~, ,,,
I /
I
I
/
APPROVr-D BY
Pb~NNING BOARD
TOWN OF 50UTHOLD
L\N~ ~ N
51TE PLAN
FERRY TERMIklAL
CROSS 30UND FERRY
SERVICE , INC. '
AT ORIENT
TOWN OF ~50UTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YOR'K
-RECEIVED BY
~O~OL6 lOgaN FtMIIiiG BOAP, B
_ ££B J_61984
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
April 2, 1984
Mr. Richard Mac Murray
Cross Sound Ferry Service
P.O. Box 33
New London, CT 06320
Re: Cross Sound Ferry
Site Plan
Dear Mr. Mac Murray:
The Board met following field inspections of March 30, 1984
and the following action was taken.
RESOLVED that the South01d Town Planning Board approve
the site plan of "Cross Sound Ferry" for the construction
of a ferry terminal subject to a one-year review.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Dians M. Schultze, Secretary
cc: Board of Appeals
Building Department
Howard Young
TOWN ~.ERK
TOWN Of STUTHOLD .
SuffolkCounty,New York 516- V65- S0] ' N9 10891'
/ ~~ ~,~ ,~ Sou~d,N'..Y. 11971~. J~ 19
~ - ~ Judith T. Terry, Town Cl~rk
O SENDER Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired and compile items
3 and 4. ' ~
Put your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent~rel~is card
from being returned to you. The return receipt fee will provide you the name of the person delivere toand
the date of delivery. For additional fees the following services are available. Consult postmast r fees
and check box(esl for additional service{si requested.
1. ~ Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address.
(Extra charge)
3. Article Addressed to:
Richard McMurray
Cross Soand Ferry
P.O. B 33
New London, CT 06320
5. Signature -- A~dressee
x
2. [] Restricted Delivery
(Extra charge)
4. Article Number
P 077 471 378
Type of Service:
[] Registered [] Insured
~ Certified [] COD
Return Recei t
[] Express Mail [] for Merch~n~se
Always obtain signature of addressee
er agent and DATE D~LIVERED.
8. Addressee's Address (ONLYif
requested and fee paid)
PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989
* U.S.G.RO. 1989-238-815
DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
,~.
SENDER:
3. Article Add~
to: ~ 4e. Article Number
Richar~ :Murray
Cross ~ td Ferry
P.O. ~ 33
New LoFt, CT 06320
5. Signature (Addressee)
6. SignetS(Agent)
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an extra
fee):
1. [] Addressee's Address
2. [] Restricted Delivery
P 628 586 864
4b. Service Type
[] Registered [] Insured
~ Certified ~- [] COD
[] Expreea Mail [] Return Receipt for
Merchandis~
7~..Date~of Delivery
/ ,, d
8. Addressee s Address (On y 'f redueste
and fee ia paid)
DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
P bP6 ~S&b &hq
\
Certified Mail Receipt
Insurance Coverage Provided
T~ DO not use for International Mail
............ (See Reverse)
~lchard McMurray
P.O. Box 33
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Richard McMurrayi
Cross Sound Ferry
P.O. Box 33
New London, CT 06320'
February 3, 1993
RE:
Site Plan for
Cross Sound Ferry
Terminal located at
Orient, N.Y.
Zoning Code: Marine II
(MII)
SCT~ 1000-15-9-11
Dear Mr. McMurray:
The Planning Board has reviewed the Site Plan for the above
referenced project.
The Board in its letter to you of March 20, 1991, had
requested an as-built plan reflecting the fact that the 4' by B'
ticket booth had not been built as shown on the approved plan.
The Board wil~ make the necessary changes to your plan on
our file copy if you will send us a letter stating that the
ticket booth will not be built with out filing an amended plan.
This action on your part will close our file on this
project.
if you have any questions, or require further assistance,
please contact staff member Robert Kassner at this office.
Sincerely,
Richard ~. Ward
Chairman
cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman
George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
From:
RE:
Vincent Wieczorek, Code Enforcement Officer
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman ~.f~
Site Plan for Cross Island Ferry Terminal
Route 25, Orient
SCTM% 1000-15-9-11
Date: August 5, 1992
SCOTF L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town HaIL 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York I]971
Fax (516) 765-1823
The Planning Board wrote the attached letter to Cross
Island Ferry on June 27, 1991,'with copies to yourself and Matt
Kiernan. To date, the Board's request for an as built site
plan or conformance to the approved site plan has not been
complied with.
Please let the Board know your progress in this matter.
cc: Matt Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney
AI~rORNEY AT LAV~
828 FRONT STREET, P. O. BOX 803
GREENFORT, NY 11944
1516~ 477-1016
June 2, 1988
.... · , ',,cu BY
JUN_j.
Southold Tow~n Board
Main Road
Southold, New York
11971
Re: Cross Sound Ferry
Dear Mr. Supervisor and Members of the Bcard:
I have been advised by my clients, Douglas and Monique Morris, that the
Cross Sound Ferry Company is utilizing a residential parcel for a commercial
parking lot. I have enclosed a map which shows my clients' property (formerly
lands of George E. Latham, Jr.) and the adjacent property of the ferry company
(formerly lands of Betsy Latham).
The ferry company has apparently constructed an opening from their existing
parking lot immediately to the west of the former Betsy Latham property and is
actively encouraging its patrons to park on this residential property. Over the
Memorial Day week-end, my clients counted over 200 motor vehicles on this residen-
tial lot at one time. Needless to say, my clients are very upset about this
unlawful use of a residential lot.
I have also enclosed a copy of a portion of the minutes of the meeting of
the Town Board on September 23, 1986. At that time, the proposed zoning map
and master plan purported to rezone the Betsy Latham parcel to marine business.
The members of your Board, realizing the inherent lack of justification for a
non-residential use of said parcel, ordered the proposed zoning map to be corrected
to designate said property as residential/agricultural.
Since that time, neither my clients nor I am aware of any application to re-
~ona ~aJd parcel or to obtain a variance or site plan approval for a business use.
It would appear that the ferry company is attempting to accomplish by stealth than
which it has been unable to obtain through legitimate channels.
JKM/lmt
cc: Southold Town Building
Southold Town Attorney
Southold Town Board of
Southold Town Planning
On behalf of my clients, and I am sure with the approval of the property
owners in the vicinity, I urge this Board to take whatever action within its
powers to put a stop to this commercial use of a residential lot.
Zoning ~ppeals
Board w'
LD
Y
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administrator
Building Department
Town of Southold
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Cross SoundFerry
Dear Hr. Lessard:
July 18, 1986
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board, Monday, July 14, 1986.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend
to the Building Department that a certificate of occupancy
be issued for the site plan of Cross Sound Ferry located in
Orient. A field inspection of the site has been made.
Please contact this office if you have any questions.
truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD
NATHAN HICKS ASSOCIATES
December 12, 1985
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administrator
Building Department
Town of Southold
Southold, New York 11971
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re: Building Permit No. 14426Z
Cross Sound Ferry, Orient
Dear Mr. Lessard:
I want to thank you for the time you gave me the other morning
to discuss this matter on behalf of my wife, Mary Jane Hicks, who is
an abutting owner to the property being developed.
As noted at that time, it is our feeling that the awarding of
the raised curb requirement for the entire length of her westerly
property line by the Board of Appeals was a minimal but very
necessary condition to the Permit, and that the construction
documents on file are deficient in not providing for this. We ask
that you enforce this provision fully.
In examining the development progress subsequent to our
meeting, it is evident that substantial changes are being made to
the site development scheme even though these changes do not appear
in the filed documents. The changes appear to only aggravate the
potential for various forms of intrusion upon her parcel. The severe
grade change being initiated at or extremely close to the property
line would appear to be beyond or crowding the limits of prudent
engineering without some further method of erosion control. With or
without further retainage of this slope, some positive preclusion of
pedestrian traffic over that area should be required if only in the
interest of public safety.
She and I both solicit your earnest assistance in assuring that
the curb condition be fully met, and that no changes be permitted in
the approved plan that in any way could be construed to aggravate
the potential for intrusion onto her parcel or create a public
danger.
NH:cbm
Nathan Hicks
'Skippers Lane
Orient, New York
NATHAN HICKS ASSOCIATES
December 12, 1985
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer,
Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Southold, New York 11971
Chairman
Re: Appeal No. 3219
Cross Sound Ferry, Orient
Dear Mr. Goehringr:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of my
letter of this date to the Building Department regarding
this matter.
Very truly yours,
Nathan Hicks
NH:cbm
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 29, 1985:
WHEREAS, Ward Associates, P.C., on behalf of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.,
has requested that this Board waive the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 with
respect to their application presently pending before the Southold Town Building
Inspector, and
WHEREAS, this Board finds that the applicant proposes to construct a new terminal
building at Orient Point, and
WHEREAS, this Board deems such use consistent with the uses in a Marine Business
District as proposed by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner, Inc.'s Master Plan Update
Zoning Code revisions,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant be and they hereby are
granted a wiver of the provisions of Local Law No. 14 - 1985 to the extent of
permitting such uses on said premises as set forth in their application presently
pending before the Southold Town Building Inspector for a building permit, subject,
however, to the applicant obtaining any and all permits and approvals required by
all Town and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereof.
Judith T. Terry ~
Southold Town Clerk
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
October 28, 1985
Mrs. Judith Terry
Town Clerk
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Request for Waiver
"Cross Sound Ferry"
Dear Mrs. Terry:
In accordance with your request, enclosed is a copy of the
file for the above mentioned site plan, as well as, a copy of
the approved site plan map.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M.Schultze, Secretary
enc.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latharn, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Richard McMurray
Cross Sound Ferry
P. O. Box 33
New London, CT 06320
March 20, 1991
RE:
Site Plan for
Cross Sound Ferry
SCTM9 1000-15-9-11
Dear Mr. McMurray:
A recent inspection of the above referenced property showed
it is not in conformance with the approved site plan of March
30, 1984.
The proposed 4' by 8' ticket boot~ has not been built and
the existing parking in the area of the booth is not shown on
the approved plan. In addition, the exiting traffic is not using
the exit road within the property.
The Board requests an as- built site plan or conformance to
the approved plan.
If the Planning Board does not hear from you within two
weeks from the date of this letter, the matter will be turned
over to the Code Enforcement Officer for further action.
If you have any questions or require further assistance,
please contact this office.
CC:
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector
Vincent Wieczorek, Code Enforcement Officer
Matthew Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone 1516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Richard McMurray
Cross Sound Ferry
P.O. Box 33
New London, CT 06320
June 27, 1991
RE: Site Plan for
Cross Sound Ferry
Terminal located at
Orient, N.Y.
SCTM# 1000-15-9-11
Dear Mr. McMurray:
This letter is in reference to the Planning Board's letter
to you of March 20, 1991, (copy enclosed), requesting an
as-built site plan or conformance to the approved plan.
To date, the Board has not received the as-built plan. Nor
has it received notice of conformance to the approved plan.
Accordingly, I regret informing you that this matter will now be
turned over to the Town Attorney and the Ordinance Inspector for
enforcement.
If you have any questions, or require further information,
please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski Jr.
Chairman
Encl.
cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector
Vincent Wieczorek, Ordinance Inspector
Matthew Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
~LEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
October 25, 1985
To:
From:
Re:
$outhold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold Town Building Department
Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Waiver Request - Ward Associates, P.C. re: Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc.
Please submit all pertinent data in your files pertaining to the waiver request
of Ward Associates, P.C, on behalf of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
relative to the construction of a new terminal building at Orient Point.
Attachment
WARD ASSOCIATEE~ P.C. -.nd.c.,. Architects. Architects, Engineer--
October 24, 198.5
Town Board
Town of Southold
Main Road
RECEIVED
OCT 2, 5
'i'own Clerk Southold
Southold, New York 11971
Re:
Building Moratorium, Commercial Zone
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Attention Town Board:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, ]nc. respectfully requests a waiver from the building
moratorium Local Law 14-85, on ferry terminal property at Orient Point, Town of
Southold to construct a new terminal building in accordance with drawings filed
with the Town Building Department.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Richord G. Ward
Board Chairman
RGW:om
LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR AIRPORT, 100 ARRIVAL AVENUE, RONKONKOMA, NEW YORK ]1779 (516) 588-2626
EAF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine,
in an orderly manner, whether a project or action is likely to be sig-
nificant. The question of whether an action is significant is not al-
ways easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that
are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who
will need to determine significance will range from those with little
or no formal knowledge of the environment to those who are technically
expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge
in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affect-
ing the question of significance.
The EAF is intended to provide a method whereby the preparer can
be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehen-
sive in nature, and yet flexible to allow the introduction of informa-
tion to fit a project or action.
EAF COMPONENTS: The 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
This phase of the evaluation 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 identi-
fies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3:
Only 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 to the municipality in which
the project is located.
Determination of Significance
If you find that one (or more) impact is both large and its con-
sequence is important, then the project is likely to be significant,-
and a draft environmental impact statement should be prepared.
Sc0ping
If a draft EIS is needed, the Environmental Assessment Form will
be a valuable tool in determining the scope of the issues to be covered
by the draft EIS.
14-16-2 (12/78)
APPENDIX A
EAF
ENVIRO;iHENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I
Project Information
NOTICE: This document is desi;ned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Oats Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered
aS pert of the a~plication 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 exdected that comolotion of the EAF will be dependent on information currently available and wiT1 not
involve new studies, research or investtqation. If information requiring suc) additional work is unava~ble,
so indicate and sdecify each instance.
~ OF PRO~IECT:
Improvements to Orient-Ferr7
Terminal Fac(lit irs
AODRESS A~D NA~E OF APPLICANT:
En-Consult ants Inc.
(Name)
64 North Main Street
(Stroet)
South~m?ton~ .N.¥,, 11968
(P.O.) (State)
(Zip)
NAME ANO AOORESS OF OWNER (If Different)
Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc.
(Name)
Box 33
(Street)
New London~ Connecticut 06320
(P.O.) (State) (Zip) -
DUS~NCSS PHONE: 323-2415
OESCRIPTION OF PROJECT~ (Briefly describe type of project'or action) Construct upland ferry
terminal facilities on the site of existing ferry terminal v~h~le staging
area. The project is to consist of a terminal building, paved vehicle staging
area, ~d p~ed e~-ance ~d exit driveways. -
(PLEASE C~L~E EACH QUESTION - Indtcat~ N.A. tf not a991tcable)
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undevel'ooed areas)
1. General character of the land: ~Geuerally uniform slope X~ Generally uneven and rolltnd or irregular
Present land use: Urban
, Agriculture
Total acreage of OroJect area: 2.2acres.
Aoproxtmate acreage: Presently After Completion
Industrial .__ , Commercial X
, Suburban ., Rural , Forest
Presently After Completion
~eadow or Brushland .2 acres .2 acres Hater Surface Area ........ acres ac~es
Forested acres acres Unvegetated (rock,
earth or fill) I acres .7 acres
Aoricu)tural acres acres
Roads, buildtnds ·
74, 2S or F.C.L.) acres acres . (,L. andscaptn~)
~ther Ondicate ~yne7 acres .3 acres
4. '~hat is nredominant soil type(s) on nroiect site? Sand
t. !~hat is deoth to bedrock? Unkno~Hl
9/1/78
Yes X
(Tn Feet)
6. Approximate percentape of proposed nroject site with stones:
0-10~ 9~ %; In-15~ ~ %; 1S~ or
greater %.
7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a buildino or site listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? Yes X No
8, What is the depth to the water table? 6.5 feet (at test hole)
g. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes No
10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered - Yes X No, according to - Identify each species
11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological
formations - __Yes X No. (Describe
12. Is the project site bresently used by the con~nunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area - Yes X No.
13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the cormnunity?
Yes X No
14. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. ~Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary
15. Lakes, Ponds, Petland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name Gardiners Bay ' ; b. Size (in acres) N/A
16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g.
single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story),
B1 Business
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
h Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 2.2 acres.
b. Project acreage developed:~.~acres tnitially;_~acres ultimately. .-
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped.~l.2± .
d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
e. If pro~ect is an exbansion of existin indicate of expansion proposed:
age 1700+_ developed acreage N~ . bercent
f. Number of off-strut parking spaces existino ~56-1- .; proposed ~56-)'
No change ~-ro-~ex~ting
g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour (upon ccxnpletion of broject)
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initial
Ultimate
If:
i. Orientation
?eighborhood-City-Regional Estimated Employment
C0mme rc i al re~tonal 5+
Industrial
j. Total height cf tallest nronosed structure ---3~ feet.
building square foot-
-2-
How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
0 tons
cubic yards,
How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site - 0 acres
Will any mature forest (over 190 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be re~ved by this
pro.lect? . Yes X No
Are there any piths for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes qo
If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~ months, (including demol t
If multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated NO.
b. Anticipated date of cormmencement phase i month year ~including
demolition)
c. Approximate completion date final phase month _ year.
· d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subseauent phases? __Yes
Will blasting occur during construction? __Yes X No
; after project is complete S .
Number of jobs generated: during construction 12 ~
Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? X Yes NO. If yes, explain:
Pre~ent ferry terminal wtll be relocated to new building.
a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes __No:
b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.)
c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged
Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or
decreased by proposal? Yes X No.
Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? X Yes No
a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes ~ No
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disnosal facility be used? Yes NO
c. If yes, give name: : local:ion
d. dill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes No
Will ornject use herbicides or pesticides? __Yes X No
Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X NO
Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes X No
~ill project result in an increase in energy use? _Yes X NO. If yes, indicate type!s) __
22.
Total anticinated water usage per day _~_~_SO0 gals/day.
Zoning: a, Uhat is dominant zon~n~ classification of site?
b. Current specific zoning classification of site
a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X No
b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? X Yes No
c. Local and Regional approvals:
Approval Required Submittal Approval
(Yes, No) (Type) (Date) {Date)
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
City, Town, Zoning Board
City, County Heal th Department
Other local agencies
Other regional agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information as nmy be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any
adverse impacts associated with the~roposal, olease discuss such impacts and the measures which can be
PREPARF,q' S SIGNATURE:
TITLE: Pre~ ~ultants Inc.
REPRESENTING: Cro$8 Sound Ferr~ ~
DATE: May 29, 1984
-4-
EAF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II
Project Impacts and Their Magnitude
General Information (Read Carefully)
- In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations
been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (colurm~ 2) does not mean that it is also necessari y
significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identiCying an
'effect in column 2 simply asks that It be looked at further.
- The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshnid
ofmagni~S~e 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 more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating.
- Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance.
They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each auestion.
' - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully}
b.
Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. AnSwer Yes if there will be mny effect.
Maybe answers should be considered as Ye~s answers.
If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential
size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any exa~)le provided, check column 2. If
impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1.
If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact t~en consider toe impact as potentially large and
proceed to PART 3.
If a Potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large
magnitude, place a Yes in col~n 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible.
NO YES
IMPACT ON LAND
WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO
PROJECT SITE?
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise oer
100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project
area exceed 10%.
Construction on Land where the denth to the water table is less
than 3 feet.
Construction of oaved narkinq area Cnr 1,~ or more vehic)es.
Censtruction on land where bedrock is exnosed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one nhase or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than ),000
tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year.
Construction of any new sanitary landfill.
-5-
SRALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE
Other impacts:
Construction in a designated floodway.
WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LANQ
FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, aeoloqical
ti4)~s, etc.)
S~cific land forn~:
!UPACT ON WATER
3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESI~ATED AS .......
PROTECTED? (Under Articles IS, 24, 25 of the Envir-
onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)
Examples that Would Aably to Coluee 2
Oredgtnb raore than 100 cubic yards of material from
channel of a protected stream.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other tntoacts:
4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-P~OTECTEU EXISTIN?, OR NEW NO YES
~OOY OF ~ATER? ............................................ ~
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
A 10% increase or decrease tn the surface area of any body
of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of
surface area.
~MALL Tr) POTENTIAL CAN IIIPACT BE
mOERATE LARGi REDUCED BY
IMPAC1 ZNPACT PROJECT CHANGE
ES
)
S
)
Other impacts:
WILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER AIALITY?
Examples that Hould Apply to Colunm 2
Project will require a discharge permit.
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have
aporoval to serve droposed project.
Project requires water supply from wells with 9reater
than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination
of a Pub)ac water supply system.
Project will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to
facilities which oresently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity.
Project redulr~n~ a Facility that would use water tn
patterns but
NILL PR.~JECT ALTER DRAINAGE FtQI!, PATTEr',IS OR SUPFAr. E HATER ,NO YES
RUNOFF? .................................................. OG
Examnle that ':ould ~nply to Colur~q 2
Project would inmede flood water flows.
Prolect is likely to cause substantial erosion.
Project is incomi)atible with existing drainage patterns.
Other impacts:New ~aved air,am will .l~..-
will be picked up by on-site drainage.
IMPACT 9N AIR
rio YES
HILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ...........................
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
Project will ioduce l,OqO or moro vehicle trips in any gtven
hour.
Project will result in the incineration of moro than 1 ton
Of r~fuse per hour.
Project emission rate of all contaminants wtll exc~d 5
lbs. oar hour or a Heat source producing more than
million BTU's bar hour.
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANI~J~LS
8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDMiREREO SPECIES?
Examples that Would Apoly to Column
Reduction of one or n~re species listed on the New York
or Federal list, Using the site, over or near site or
found on the site.
Removal of any oortion of a critical or sianiftcant wild-
life
Ao~licatinn of Pesticide or herbicide over more than
NO YES
GO
WILL PROJECT SUBSTAIITIALLY AKFECT HON-THREATENED OR NO YES
ENDANqERED SPECIES? ....................................... GO
Examole that Would A~lv to Column 2
;)',ALL TP POTENTIAL CAN IUPACT BE
%9DE~TE LARGE REDUCED gv
-7-
Project will result in the ~limination or major
screening of scenic views or vistas known to be
important to the area.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURC~S
WILL PROJECT I~PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO
PRE-~iIST~PIC AR PALEOrITO~ICAL I),POPTANCE? .................
Examples that I~ould ADDlv to Column 2 ~
Proiect occurino wholly or ~artially within or contiouous
to any Cacilitv or site listed on the National Reois~er of
historic ~laces.
Any impact to an archeological s~*te or fossil b~d located
within the project site.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATIg~I
gILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO
OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUtlITIES? ......
Examples that Nould Aopl.v to Colum~ 2
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oooortunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other imoacts:
NO
t~O~CT nN T~ANSPORTATI~N
13. !rILL THERE BE Ali EFFECT TO EXISTIIiC TP~ANSPORTATIDN
SYSTEMS?
E~amples that Would Annly to Column ~ *
-- Alteration of present patterns of r~ve~nt of neop)e
and/or goods.
* Present transportation systems will be maintalned
but in a more efficient manner.
IODERATE LARGE REDUCED
I~PACT I'm~CT PRnJECT C)!ANGE
S
)
YES
YES
:~PACT ON ENERGY
:FC' aFfECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL AR
NO YES
% e~ that Would Aomly tO Column 2
,-~,~[ causlng oreater than 5% increase in any form of
~,r'!? used in municipality.
~!ect requiring the creation or extension of an energy
~ransnlssion or supply system to serve more than 50 sinqle
two family residences.
3ther impacts:
IMPACT ON NOISE
WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GkARE, VIB(~ATION NO YES
or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OP THIS PROJECT? .... ~
Examp1Qs that ~ould Aooly to Column 2
BlastinR within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other
sensitive facility.
Adors will occur routinely (n~re than one hour per day),
Pro iect will nroduce ooereting noise exceedinm the
local ambient noise levels for noise ou~.$ide of structures.
Pro~ect will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen,
Ather impacts:
IMPACT 0)! HEALTH & HAZARDS
NO YFS
16. HILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? .............
Exampl.s that Would AQply to Colunm 2
Proiect will cause a -isk o~ explosion or release of hazardous
-- substances k,e. oil, ~esticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)
in the event of accident or u9set conditions, or there will
he a £hron!c lot~ level discharge or emission.
Prniect that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes"
(i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc., includinq wastes that are solid, semi-solid,
liquid or contain qases.)
SCorao6 Facilitims COt one million nr more Qallnns of liouified
natural gas or ot~er liouids.
SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT DE
'~DERATE LA~GE REDUCED BY
IMPACT I'IPACT PROJECT CHANG
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMIIUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOgD
I7.
WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHADACTEO nF THE EXISTING NO YES
COMMUNITY7 ................................................ QO
Example that Would ADDIv to Column 2
The population of the City, Town or Village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% o(:
resident human population.
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or onera-
ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a
result of this project.
Will involve anv permanent facility of a non-agricultural
use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural
lands from cultivation.
The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures or areas of historic importance to the community.
Development will induce an influx of a particular age
group with special needs. . .
Project will set an important precedent for future prolects.
Project will relocate 15 or more emnloyees in one or more
businesses.
Other imoacts:
NO YES
18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT?
Examples that Would Apply to Column 2
~ I 1
Either government or citizens of adjacent comun't'es
have expressed OPposition or rejected the proiect or have
not been contacted.
Obiections to the nroject from within the community.
IIF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A
P~TENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETEPJ4INE
I
THE MAGI/II,JOE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3.
PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT:
DETERMINATION PART I X PART II DC PART 3
2~LL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
~DER~TE LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT IliPACT PROJECT CHANGE
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAr (Parts l, 2
and 3) and considerinq both the maonitude and imQortance of each
t~&ct, it is reasonably determined that:
A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefnre,
is one which may not cause significant damaae to thP environmont.
B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a signif:cant eCfect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been
included as part of the nroDosed project.
C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts
that cannot be reduced and ma cause sinnificant damage to
the
Bate
Roy L. Haje, P~nt,/X~E~on,ultants Inc.
Signature of Prenarer (if dif,~ere~ from ~)esnonsibl'e-ofTlce'r)
PREPARE A !JEnATIVE OECLARATION
CD
PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
-CD
PREPAR[ POSITIVE DECLARATI09 PROCEED WITB EIS
--CD
Sionature of Rosponsible Afficial in Lead
Agency
~t or tyne na~e of ~espons~ble official
E~F
E~IVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III
EVALUATID:i OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
~r~ ~ is i)repared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be Potentially laroe,
The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the ouestlon: In briefly
completing t~e instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the
reasonableness of my ,decisions?
INSTRUCTIONS
Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2:
I. Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro-
ject change.
3. Based on the information available, decide if it ~s reasonable so conclude that this impact is important
to the minicipality (city, town or v(llaqe) in which the project is located.
To answer the question of importance, con~ider:
The probability of the impact or effect occurrinq
The duration of the impact or effect
Its. irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values
Whether the impact or effect can be controlled
The regional consequence of the impact or effect
Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
Whether known objections to the project apply to this impact or effect.
OETER)~INATION OF SIG~)IFICANCE
An action is considered to be significant if:
Ape (or more) impact is determined to both lame and its (their) conseouence, based on the review
above, is important.
PART III STATEMENTS
{Continue on Attachments, as needed)
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
July 20, 1984
Olga Turner
Suffolk County Community Development
Office
H. Lee Dennison
Veterans Memorial Highway
Happauge , NY 11788
Re: Cross Sound Ferry
Orient
Dear Mrs. Turner:
At the request of the $outhold Town Community Director,
James C. McMahon, I am writing to inform you that on
June 4, 1984 the Southold Town Planning Board declared
itself lead agency with regard to the above mentioned
site plan.
Following a review of the Long Enviromental Assessment
Form and the site, the Planning Board then issued a
Negative Declaration.
If you haw any further questions, please don't hesitate
to contact this office.
Very truly yourst
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
THOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Diane M. sch~tze, S~creuary
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PETER F. COHALAN
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
HOWARD DEMARTINI
July 12, 1984
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons
P.O. Box 328
Orient! N.Y. 11957
Dear Hr. Lyons:
This letter is being sent in response to the concerns raised in
your June 13~ 1984 letters regarding the proposed community Development
improvements at the Orient Point Ferry Terminal, in the Town of Southold.
You state in Four letter that you object to the finding of "no
significant effect on the environment" for the above mentioned project~
and that you feel that there was insufficient input from the affected
communities. Our office believes that there was extensive opportunity
for public comment regarding the above mentioned project durin8 the 4
public forums arranged by the NYS DOT. Forums were held in March 1981
in Hauppauge, New Haven, Southold, and Hempstead. As per the NYS DOT
report regardin8 the 4 public forums, public consensus was that "improved
ferry service is both desirable and feasible".
You also state in Four letter that the proposed .improvements
will contribute to automobile pollution~ noise, and congestion. It is
our contention that future increases in ridership will come as a result
of demand, not as a result of terminal improvements. The proposed
project is expected to increase the orderliness and efficiency of the
terminal operation. Improved efficiency with respect' to passenger
check-in and vehicle traffic control will relieve congestion on the local
roads caused by vehicles waiting to enter the staging area.
In your letter you suggest that the Cross Sound Ferry Company
should seek alternate landing sites thereby protecting the environment
from further damage. Alternate landing sites would necessitate improve-
ments and modifications to the existing natural environment thereby
impacting additional sites. Ferry service from the existing site to
New London has been provided since the 1930's. Planned improvements
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons
July 12, 1984
Page 2
are not expected to significantly impact the already modified environ-
ment at the Orient site. Findings of the Long Island Sound Ferry Service
Improvement Study indicate that service improvements are both necessary
and desirable. As this study was made part :of our Environmental Review,
by reference, the findings contained therein are also considered part of
the Environmental Review analysis.
JTS/OVT/ll
Sincerely,
o~s~ph T. Sanseverino ~
Community Development Director
Cc: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Council on Environmental Quality
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold To~Planning Board/'
NYS Department of Transportation
cour~J~Y OF SUFFOLK
July 12, 1984
Mr. John Contignglia
Box 182
Orient, New York 11957
Pdt: Cross Sotmd Ferry Terminal
Dear Mr. Contiguglia:
I have received your letter of June 16, 1984 in which you
object to the release of state and federal funds for the development and
renovation of the ferry terminal at Orient Point without a "prior
environmental impact study". A "prior environmental impact study"
defined under the Community Development Program as an Environmental
Review Record (ERR) has been completed, and a determination of no
significant impact was made on this project.
No significant impact on the environment will result f~om the
upgrading and renovation of the ferry terminal, because the proposed
improvements are not large scale. /he parking lot to be paved is the
existing staging area presently in use for loading the ferry. An
upgraded pier is necessary to serve a vessel which is already in use
and has been in use for approximately a year. New restroom facilities
are a replacement for those presently in use which are not designed
for accessibility to the handicapped.
A larger docking facility or paved staging area will not
encourage more traffic on Route 25. The traffic is already there. The
inevitable growth of Long Island has caused an increased demanJ for
Cross Sound Ferry services. The demand for service to New England from
East End farmers, businesses and residents already exists. The present
adverse impact is that this traffic is not being handled efficiently.
In 1981, there were 7,000 trucks, in 1982 - 10,000 and in 1983 - 12,000
using the ferry. Peak ridership is during the summer. Annual passenger
vehicles in 1981 were 97,000, in 1982 - 94,500, and in 1983 - 119,300.
It is the objective of this ~ro~ect to move efficiently to handle the
existing traffic.
Mr. John Contiguglia
July 12, 1984
Page 2
A detailed environmental review record (ERR) has been prepared
for this project and has been reviewed by other agencies involved in
environmental protection. This document is required before federal funds
may be used. In the opinion of this office, an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is not necessary, as the minimum threshold requiring it
has not been reached.
Sincerely,
Joseph T. Sanseverino
Community Development Director
JTS/SDW/ll
cc: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Council on Evironmental Quality
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold Town Planning Board/
NYS Department of Transportation
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
July 12, :984
Messrs. G. Proud and P. Lyons
Corresponding Secretaries
Orient Association, P.O. Box 44RD#l
Orient, New York 11957
.ros. Sou~.d Ferry
Dear Mr. Proud and Mr. Lyons:
We have received
environmental considerations
the Orient Point ferry.
your letter cf Ju~e 17, 1984 regarding
with respect ~o ter~ral /~=provements for
This office does not agree with your ~hasis *-hat the project
will have a significant effect on the quality of ~ke hu~a~ environment.
In order to document this detemination a de~ailed statement on the
environmental impact of the proposed action ~_as ~een prepared. This
detailed statement, an Environmental Revie~ ~ecord (F_R~,), was prepared
because the scale of the project did not mania~e tke prepare:ion of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). ~neF--~ i~cc_-porates comprehensive
review ender all laws and authorities imcludimg ]~q~PA and is in compliance
with the requirements and obligations of the sa~e.
The Orient Association has expressed co~ce-~ regarding a
possible increase in traffic due to the upgrad±zg :f the fer-~' terminal.
Your letter states that NYSDOT (1981) projected ~3~,000 cars and 18,000
trucks by 1991. We were unable to verify ~kZs figure ~when the 1981
study was reviewed. In 1981 annual riderskip ~as 97,000 cars and 7,000
trucks. In 1983 the ridership was 119,300 cars. 5msed on these figures
the 1991 projection should be 157,600 oars. For the same year (1983)
the number of trucks was 12,000; by the sa~e straight line projection
truck traffic should be 9,200 in 1991.
The Town of Southold requested
participation in the project because =he prc[e=u ~ill genera:e employ-
ment opportunities for Southold residents, l=vcivement of federal
Community Development funds in the entire prcfect is 10% or less.
Messrs. G. Proud and P. Lyons
July 12, 1984
Page 2
Your letter states that the County reviewed the project as a
single entity for environmental purposes. Please be advised that this
was not the procedure followed. Under 24 CFR Part 58.32 "a recipient
must group together and evaluate as a single project all individual
activities which are related either geographically or functionally, or
are logical parts of a composite of contemplated actions.., even if some
of the activities are to be funded by other than Title I funds or carried
out by someone else". The Environmental Review Record available in this
office evidences that project aggregation was not ignored. Placement
of new dolphins, paving of the staging area, a new terminal building,
replacement of ferry dock and bulkheading, maintenance dredging, and
vehicular ingress and egress were evaluated in aggregate and
cumulatively.
The review conducted by the Community Development staff
considered the c,,mmulative effects of the improvements. The parking lot
changes proposed does not include an expansion, but rather paving of the
existing staging area. Runoff will be channeled into French drains, an
improvement over the present method. The new terminal building will be
located above the 100 year flood level and will contain restroom
facilities accessible to the handicapped; both features are required by
law and are not available in the present structure.
Your statement regarding estimated daily fresh water demand of
22,500 gallons is in error. This is the standard which describes the
peak demand required by the Department of Mealth for the pump and in no
way reflects estimated daily demand. Provision has been made for sewage
disposal by increasing the number of cesspools and grouping them for more
effective treatment of waste water. As stated previously, runoff will
be contained on site through the use of French drains. Entrance to
Orient Beach State Park is 1,200' from the project and the wildlife
sanctuary at the western most tip of the park is over four miles away.
The environmental assessment of the project adequately assesses the
risks to wildlife, the ecological and environmental concerns with respect
to water availability, water and air pollution.
None of the impacts meet SEQRA thresholds for an environmental
impact statement (EIS). This project does not involve the physical
alteration of 10 acres, will not use ground water in excess of 2 million
gallons per day, will not provide parking for 1,000 vehicles and does
not provide for a building expansion of more than 100,000 square feet of
gross floor area. In aggregate the project does not meet 50% (or 25%)
of any threshold. The project is not within nor contiguous to Orient
Beach State Park or any Critical Environmental Area. (See 617.7).
The project and its component actions have been studied in
detail. The record will show that this office has consulted with the
State Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Department of
Environmental Protection, State Department of Transportation, U.S.
Messrs. G. Proud and P. Lyons
July 12, 1984
Page 3
Department of Housing and Urban Development, To~m of Southold, Council
on Envirommental Quality, Suffolk County Planning Commission, New York
State Department of State (Coastal Management Commission). Ambient air
quality standards have been consulted as was the Suffolk County
Department of Health.
In considering alternatives, the scope of the project must be
kept in mind. Public and private funds are being proposed to upgrade
an existing facility. It is not feasible to terminate service across
the Sound from this point. The entire population of the North Fork from
Riverhead eastward would be forced to go to Port Jefferson or to the
bridges at Throgs Neck or ~itestone for access to New England. Prior
attempts have been made to establish ferry service across Long Island
Sound from Greenport, Wading River and East Hampton without success.
The Rye to Oyster Bay Bridge proposal is not considered a viable alterna-
tive. If the Cross Sound Ferry were to move to another location on the
North Fork at Orient the traffic problem would not be solved and any
other location in this area would be more ecologically sensitive. Term-
ination of service or establishment of new service is not now feasible.
The alternative of "no project" would leave the existing
conditions intact: poorly paved staging area without adequate drainage;
small terminal building with restrooms unaccessible to handicapped
persons; unimproved pier; and dolphins that are inadequate and possibly
dangerous for proper docking of the ferries. Existing congestiom, noise
and traffic would not change, would not improve, and would not go away.
There is no feasible alternative. The transportation needs of over a
million residents of Suffolk County need to be served, as do the needs
of over 40,000 year round residents of the Tow~ of Riverhead, Southold
and Shelter Island.
In closing, there is a need for this project. There is no
other location available or feasible, and design of the improvements
is constrained by availability of land, wind and tide patterns,
ordinances and regulations. There are always environmental consider-
ations. We have tried to weigh the benefits and disadvantages so that
the most people will be assisted with the least damage to the environ-
ment and in accordance with our interpretation of the law.
Sincerely,
Joseph T. Sanseverino
Community Development Director
JTS/SDW/ll
Enc.
cc: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Council on Environmental Quality
Southold To~ Board of Appeals
Southold Tom~ Planning Board /
N~fM Dept. of Transportation
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 5, 1984
Mr.Richard MacMurray
Cross Sound Ferry
P.O. Box 33
New London, CT 06320
Dear Mr. MacMurray:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board at the regular meeting on June 4, 1984.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare itself
lead agency with regard to the site plan for Cross Sound
Ferry Services located at Orient under the State Environmental
Quality Reveiw Act. An initial determination of non-significance
has been made.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
8outhold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 5, 1984
Environmental Analysis Unit
DEC, Building 40, Room 219
SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11794
Gentlemen:
Long
Enclosed find a completed~Environmental Assessment Form
and a copy of the map of the n~r~x~x~x site plan
of Cross Sound Ferry Terminal located at @rient .
This project is unlisted and an initial determination of
non-significance has been made. We wish to coordinate this
action to confirm our initial determination in our role as lead
agency.
May we have your views on this matter. Written comments
on this project will be received at this office until June 19,
198 ~ We shall interpret lack of response to mean there is no
objection by your agency in regard to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act.
Yours truly,
BENNETT ORLOW~KI, ~R-.,, CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary
enc.
cc: Department of Health Services
COUNTY OF SUFI=OLK
PETER F. COHALAN
COUNTY eXECUTIVE
HOWARO DE:MARTINI
D£pt,i'J~ COLINT~ EXECUTIVE
COMMUNICATIONS AND
May 30, ~.98~
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
PROJECT NAME: C~oSs Sound Fer~y Services, Inc.
PROJECT NO.: 1022-13c-100-09 SCRG
This notice is issued pursuant to Pa~t 617 of the implementing regulations
pertaining to A~ticle 8 of the N.Y.S. Enfironmental Quality Review Act of the
Environmental Conservation Law.
The Suffolk County Community Development Office determines the within
project not to have a significant adverse effect on the enviroriment for the
reasons indicated below..
Please take further notice that this declamation should not be considered
a detez~nination made for any other department or agency which may also have an
application pending for the same or similar p~oject.
TYPE OF ACTION: Type II ~is~e~
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: (a) Construct principal building to be for ferry-
ter~ninal use with an insufficient frontyard setback from the easterly, line,
(b) establish fern-terminal use in this B-1 Zone, (c) construct staging area,
(d) landscaping, (e) bulkhead improvements, and (f) res~oom improvements.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly
known as: ~2175 Main Road, Orient, NY; 1000-015-09-11.
REASON SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: An Environmental Assessment has been
prepamed which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment
ame likely tooccur should this project he implemented as planned.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Olga V. Tu/~ner, Community
Development Specialist, Suffolk County Community Development, H. Lee Dennison
Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 360-5019.
cc: Mr. Jim Bagg, CEQ
Mr. Jim McMahon, Southold Community Development ~
M~.3'William Rogers, Clerk, Suffolk County Legislature
~ Ms. Linda Kowalski, Southold Town Board of Appeals
~\~ Mr. Poster J. Beach, NYS DOT
~ ~' M~. Jean Gilman, NYS DEC
HE~ YOI~ STATK
_1
~ °'(516) 751-790o
O.c, T,o~ 33
York State Department of Environmental Conservation has found the
~ parcel ~ project ~to be:
~reat. r thun ,00' ,to. ,--.to~,.d tidal .t~.n~.. ('~, ~ ~ )
~d~ard o~ a ~st~ttal m-u~ ~tructur,
greater ~h~ 100' in length c~st~cted prior 'to Septe~er 20. 19~7.
~ard of 10' c~tour eleVatiOn abo~ ~ sea la~l ~ a grad~L, nat-
ural slope.
~ard o~ ~opo~raph~ca~ c~sC of bluff, c~ff or d~e in ex~ss o~ 10
feet in elevati~ ~e ~ Sea leal.
T~fore, no permit ~mdar Article ~25~ (Tidal We~lanas of 'the Bwwlr°nmenl:al-
State ~da~d ~isdicti~ pur8,,-~ to ~s ~ct. a~ver, :~y additi~[al ~rk ~
or ~ificatio~ ~ ~e p~JeCt ~y req~re a pe~t. Xt ia your respoz~sibill~y
to notify tM8 ofii=, in ~itinl, ii such additl~al ~ of =allatt.m are
c~Ia~d.
Very~ff_~itruly yours,. /~~
Ik~i~l J. Lark~n
R~Sional S~r of "
~d~atory A££o~ro
1984 SCHEDULE
March 9 - April I Leaves New London 7:15 am 10:45 am 2:15 pm 5:45 Dm
Daily Leaves Orient Point 9:00 am 12:30 pm 4:00 pm 7:30 pm
April 2 - June 17 Leaves New London 7:15 am 8:30 am 10:45 am 12:30 pm
Except April 20, 21, 23 2:15 pm 4:30 pm 5:45 pm
May 25, 27, 28 Leaves Orient Point 9:00 am 10:30 am 12:30 pm 2:30 pm
See Holiday Schedule 4:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:30 pm
Leaves New London 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 11:00 am 12:00 pm 1:00 pm
Summer Schedule 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 7:00 pm 8:00 pm 9:00 pm
June 18 - Sept. 9
Daily Leaves Orient Point 7:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am 11:00 am 1:00 pm 2:00 pm
3:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7:00 pm 9:00 pm 10:00 pm
Sept. 10 - Oct. 28 Leaves New London 7:15 am 8:30 am 10:45 am 12:30 pm
Except Oct. 5, 7, 8 2:15 pm 4:30 pm 5:45 pm
See Holiday Schedule Leaves Orient Point 9:00 am 10:30 am 12:30 pm 2:30 pm
4:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:30 pm
Oct. 29 - Dec. 2 Except Nov. Leaves New London 7:15 am 10:45 am 2:15 pm 5:45 pm
19 thru 23, 25, 26
See Holiday Schedule Leaves Orient Point 9:00 am 12:30 pm 4:00 pm 7:30 pm
Dec. 3 - March 11 Leaves New London Mon. thru Thurs. 8:00 am 12:00 pm 4:00 pm
Except Dec. 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 26, 28, 29, 31 Leaves New London Fri. thru Sun. 7:15 am 10:45 am 2:15 pm 5:45 pm
Jan. 1, 2
Feb. 15, 18 Leaves Orient Point Mon. thru Thurs. 10:00 am 2:00 pm 6:00 pm
See Holiday Schedule Leaves Orient Point Fri. thru Sun. 9:00 am 12:30 pm 4:00 pm 7:30 pm
HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
Oct. 8 Leaves New London 7:15 am 8:30 am 10:45 am 12:30 pm
Nov. 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26
Dec. 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31 2:15 pm 4:30 pm 5:45 pm
Jan. 1, 2 Feb. 15, 18 Leaves Orient Point 9:00 am 10:30 am 12:30 pm 2:30 pm
No Trips Dec. 25 4:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:30 pm
Apr. 20, 21, 23 Leaves New London 7:15 am 8:30 am 10:45 am 12:30 pm
May 25, 27, 2E~ 2:15 pm 4:30 pm 5:45 pm 9:00 pm
Oct. 5, 7, Nov. 21, 25
Dec. 21, 23, 26 Leaves Orient Point 9:00 am 10:30 am 12:30 pm 2:30 pm
4:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:30 pm 11:00pm
*We Anticipate A Rate Increase Effective April 1, 1984
RATES:
Adult
Child (under 12 years)
Auto (including driver)
One-Way
$ 5.50
$ 2.75
$17.00
Round Trip (Same day only)
$8.50
$4.25
No round trip fare, sold one-way only
Reservations:
Reservations should be made first by calling or in person and be accompanied by a $10.00 deposit. Vehicles with reservations are
REQUIRED to be at the dock 30 minutes before their scheduled sailing; otherwise, the reservation and deposit are forfeited. A 48
hour notice of cancellation is necessary to refund deposits.
When mailing deposits, please include the following information: name, return address, phone number, date of departure, time of de-
parture and point of departure. DO NOT DOUBLE BOOK.
All written raservations should be addressed to CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., Box 33, New London, Ct. 06320
Phones:
For vehicle reservations from New London (203) 443-5281 For vehicle reservations from Orient Point (516) 323-2415
to Orient Point Phone: (203) 443-5035 to New London Phone: (516) 323-2525
(Main Office) (203) 443-7394 (516) 323-2743
Sailing time: approximately 1 ~ hours. Daylight Savings Time when in effect. All schedules subject to change without notice.
Cross Sound Ferry Service, Inc.
Box 33
New London, Ct. 06320
Visit Historic Greenport
Sailing from New London, you'll be met by bus at Orient Point
and taken to the historic village of Greenport where you'll have am-
ple time to browse and dine. The bus will return you to the ferry.
Adults $10.00 Daily June 25-Sept. 3
Children $5.00 Leave New London 9:00 & 11:00 am
Leaves Orient Point 5:00 & 7:00 pm
Visit Historic New London
Sailing from Orient Point you'll find yourself within easy walking
distance of the many shops and restaurants of historical
downtown New London. Return same day.
Adults $8.50 Daily -- Year Round
Child $4.25 Leave Orient Point and New London
on any scheduled sailing.
For Your Convenience and Safety
1) All passengers are requested to exit from their cars and walk on and off the
vessels.
2) Drivers are requested to place vehicles in PARK and set hand brake. Do not
lock your car.
3) All passengers must remain out of your car and off the vehicle deck until the
vessel is secured to the deck.
4) NO SMOKING on vehicle deck.
Directions to New London Terminal
On 95 South -- Exit 84 South for "Downtown New London." At 2nd ~ight go
left onto Gov. Wintnrop Blvd. Go left at end. Take first right to ferry entrance.
On 95 North -- Exit 83 for "Downtown New London." At 2nd light go ~eft onto
Gov. Winthrop Blvd. Go left at end. Take first right to ferry entrance.
On Rte. 32 -- After Coast Guard Academy go left to 2nd light onto Gov. Win-
throp Blvd. At end go left. Take first right to ferry entrance.
From Hartford -- Rte. 2, to Rte. 11, to Rte. 85 to Broad Street, to Gov. Win-
throp Blvd. Left on Water Street, Right over RR tracks to ferry entrance.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for
Ferry Terminal Facilities
by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
PREPARED BY:
Eh-Consultants, Inc.
64 North Main Street
Southamptou, New York 11968
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of apendices .................................
Summary . ..........................................
Description of Action .............................
Description of Environmental Setting .............. Location ....................................
Environmental Features ef the Site .......
Geology and Soils ....................
Slopes and Topography ................
Land Forms ........
Erosion and Sedimentation Potential ..
Hydrology .........
Groundwater .....................
Ecology .............................
Vegetation ....
Wildlife ......
Land Use ........
Demography .[~[[ ......
Public Services ......
Historical Resources ..
Visual Character .......
Noise Levels ...........
Odor Levels .............
Existing Environmental Constraint Affecting Action
Statement of Environmental Effects .............
Identification of Any .A.d.v.e.r.s.e Effects Which C.a.r~.?t
Be Avoided .........................
Description of Mitigation Measures to Minimize
Adverse Effects ............................
Identification of Any Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources '
Description of Any Growth-Inducing Aspects of the
Action .....................................
Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation
of Energy ..................................
2
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
10
lO
11
11
11
11
12
16
16
~7
17
Studies,
of DEIS
19
Reports and Literature Used in Preparation
Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives
To Achieve the Same or Similar Objectives ...... 18
List of Appendices
1. Proposed site plan by Young & Young.
2. Preliminary terminal building plans.
3. Site location map.
4. Water analysis laboratory report by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell.
5. 1984 ferry schedule.
6. Town of Southold Planning Board letter of April 2, 1984 acknowledging
Planning Board approval of site plan.
7. Photographs of the site taken March 16, 1984.
-1-
SUMMARY
The applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., seeks all
necessary approvals to construct upland ferry terminal facilities
on the site of their existing ferry terminal vehicle staging area.
The project is to consist of a terminal building, paved vehicle
staging area, and paved entrance and exit driveways.
The site with an area of 2.2 acres, is preeently extensively
paved, and is being used as a vehicle staging area. It contains one
2
small wood frame structure of 440 ft which will be removed or
replaced to a new location.
The proposed terminal building, a 2 story, 48' x 42', Cape Cod
style structure,.will be used to house the ferry administrative
office, waiting area, ticket office, passenger lounge and restrooms.
A one story wood frame structure, which presently serves these
functions on an adjacent parcel of land, will be converted to a snack
bar for use by ferry passengers.
The issues that have been ident£fied with the proposed project
are:
1. Generation of increased traffic
2. Availability of adequate water supply
The parcel is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, N.Y.
Site plan approval has been granted by the Southold Planning
Board.
Variances for front yard setbacks and to locate a ferry terminal
in a B-1 Business zone have been granted by the Town of Southold Zoning
-2-
Board of Appeals.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services has issued preliminary
approval for the waste water disposal system and water supply.
Tidal Wetlands (Article 25) permits from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation are not required as all work
will be landward of an existing retaining wall.
DescriPtion of Action
The applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., proposes to
construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of the existing
ferry terminal vehicle staging area. The project is to consist of a
terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, and paved entrance and
exit driveways.
The purpose of the project is to provide improved service and
conveniences to ferry users, and to facilitate more efficient operation
~nd maintenance of terminal operations and facilities.
Existing terminal facilities are located on 2 parcels of land East
and West of Main Ed. at the Easterly terminus of Rt. 25. A one story
wood frame building, serving as a business office, ticket office,
waiting area, lounge and vending machine snack bar, is situated on the
1.4 acre parcel East of Main Rd., along with an unpaved parking lot,
cesspool wastewater disposal'system and water well. -
All terminsl construction and improvements are to take place on
the. 2.2 acre parcel West of Main Rd., which is the existing, partially
paved vehicle staging area. A small, one story wood frame building
2
(440 ft ), serving as a waiting room, situated adjacent to the ferry
loading ramp, will be removed or relocated.
-3-
The proposed terminal building, a 48' x 42', 2 story Cape-Cod
style structure, will house the ferry administrative office, ticket
office, waiting area, passenger lounge and restrooms. The second floor
will be used for bulk storage. The reader is referred to the architect~
drawings in the appendices for further details of the proposed building.
A paved vehicle staging area, with a 156 car capacity, is proposed
South of the terminal building. Although this area is now partially
paved, full paving is required for the purpose of marking vehicle
lanes, and to facilitate snow removal, surface cleanup and maintenance.
Paved entrance and exit driveways are also proposed.
Prior to construction of the terminal building and. paved areas,
the elevation of the land will be raised to a maximum of +11.0' by
the addition of approximately 3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill
which is now on the site, and was obtained from maintenance dredging
of the ferry slip. Existing and proposed elevation contours are shown
~n the site plan in the appendices.
Sewage disposal will be accomplished by an on-site septic tank
and leaching pool system, consisting of one 4500 gallon septic tank,
a distribution pool and a field of leaching pools capable of handling
2250 gallons per day.
Potable water will be provided by a well, the exact location of
which is pending Suffolk County D~partment of Health Services input and
approval. However, a test well dug on the site provided water meeting
New York State and U.S. drinking water standards. The reader is referred
to the englneers water analysis contained in the appendices.
Surface runoff will be contained by the installation of French
Drains, in three separate locations. The reader is referred to the
engineer's site plan, contained in the appendices, for further details,
including those of the septic and drainage systems.
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has been owned by the applicant
since 1975 when it wa~ purchased from the New London Freight Lines.
Ferry service to New London, Connecticut has been operated from this
site since at least the early 1930's a~d the site has served marine
transportation since at least 1797. Maps on file at the Suffolk County
Historical Museum in Riverhead, N.Y. show a dock named "Point Dock" at
this location in 1797, "Steamboat Wharf" in Atlas' of 1873 and 1896,
and "Point Dock" in a 1909 "Map of a Section of Suffolk County, L.I.".
Newspaper clippings on file at the museum, dated July 15, 1948 and
August 26, 1948, refer to the addition of two new ferries, the "Orient"
and the "Gay Head". The Orient was a 204' vessel capable of accomo-
dating 68 autos and 300 passengers, a~d the Gay Head was a 203' vessel
of unstated capacity. At that time, the ferries were making 6 runs
daily, between Orient Point and New London.
The need for this project derives from the obligation of the
applicant to provide adequate services and facilities to ferry users,
and to allow for more efficient and effective terminal operation.
It is anticipated that the work will conm~ence upon receipt of all
necessary approvals, and be completed by March 1985.
Descriotion of Environm~ntal Sett~n?
Location
The site is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. It is bounded on the north
by Rt. 25, on the east by Main Rd., on the west by a parcel zoned
--5--
Bi-Business, n.o.f. Blauvelt, which is the site of a one-family private
residence, and on the south by Gardiners Bay.
Environmental Features of the Site
G dS
As indicated on sheet 4 of Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York
(USDA, 1975), the entire parcel is classified as Fd, Fill Land, Dredged
Material. It is described as follows:
"Fill land, dredged m~terial Od), is made up of areas that
have been filled with material from hydraulic or mechanical
dredging operations. These operations are used mainly to
widen or deepen boat channels in salt water; however, some
dredged material has been obtained from new channels cut into
tidal marshes. Most of the dredged material is pumped onto
tidal marshes. Smeller -mmunts are placed on beaches and
dunes and on nearby mineral soils in a few places.
The practice generally is to dike an area by using on-site
material. The dredgings are then pumped into the diked area
and allowed to settle. Excess water drains back into the bay.
After the water drains off, heterogeneous deposits of sand,
gravel and sea shells remain. In many places a dark-gray silty
mud remains. Protective dunes have been built with clean sand
and gravel dredgings in some places, and in such places a few
naturally formed dunes are included in mapping.
Fill land, dredged material, is not suited to farming. Areas
are satisfactory for building sites where the fill is adequate
and if the highly compressible organic layers in the tidal
marshes are removed prior to filling. Areas where the fill
is placed on marshes containing thick organic layers are
likely to be unstable and need on-site investigation before
building on them.
Droughtiness, low fertil~ty,'and high salt content severely _
limit the establishment of lawns and other landscape plantings.
Cesspools do not function properly where the ground water
is at a shallow depth. Capability unit not assigned; woodland
suitability group not assigned."
Sloees and ToDoeramhv
Elevations on the site vary between 4.7' and 8.3', with most
of the site lying between 4.7' and 6.0'. As can be seen from the
-6-
contours on the site plan, the site is flat, with little slope.
Land For~s
No land forms of geologic significance are located on the site.
Most of the site is paved, and seaward of the retaining wall and west
of the seawall is a coarse sand and gravel beach.
No mineral resources occur on the site.
Erosion and Sedimentation Poten~$al
Rapid water percolation through sand plus the flatness of the
terrain combine to cause little erosion and/or sedimentation potential.
The site is protected from shore eriosion by the seawalls and retaining
wall as shown on the site plan.
Surface Watg~
The site is bordered on the south by Gardiners Bay, a large
tidal body of water lying between the Eastern North and South Forks
of Long Island. It's mean tide range is 2.5'~ and it's spring tide
range is 3.0'. The NYSDEC h~s classified it as SA, the highest -
classification for tidal waters. These waters are "... suitable for
shellfishing for market purposes and primary and secondary contact
recreation." The area is presently open to shellfishlug.
Groundwater
The site lies within the Nassau-Suffolk 208 Study Water
'7--
Management Zone IV. Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern
part of the South Fork. The "208 Study" (Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1978) describes Zone IV as having "unique groundwater
conditions, and special management alternatives apply to it.
Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations in wells located in agricultural areas that are above
six milltgr-m- per liter, with many observations exceeding ten milli-
grams per liter. Although groundwater underlying agricultural areas
shows definite signs of nitrogen-related cont~tnation, the residential
areas still have good quality water, and statistical examination of
over 300 analyses from domestic wells located on the North Fork indi-
cates that almost all have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less
than three milligrams per liter."
Laboratory test results from an on-site test well 18' deep show
the ground water quality to be satisfactory. The reader is referred
to the appendices for results of the engineers water analysis.
EcQlogy
Ve~etation
Since the site is partially paved, heavily traveled by
vehicles using the ferry, and is periodically used as a temporary
repository for dredge spoil,'veg~tation, with the exception of low
grasses and weeds along it's perimeter, is non-existent.
Wildlife
Due to the conditions stated above, and the intensive nature
of human use of the site, wildlife is limited to those species able to
exist in close proximity to man and his development.
-8--
During several visits to the site, a list of animals noted
was kept. Birds noted can be divided into two categories: Upland
and shorebirds/waterfowl. Of the former mourning doves, sparrows,
robins, grackles, swallows and starlings were noted. The latter is
represented by gulls and terns.
Observations of man,hals during site visits indicated
cottontail rabbit and mice (probably meadow moles).
Land Use
The site has been used as a part of the ferry terminal operation
since at least the early 1930's. It is used as the staging area for
vehicles waiting to board the ferry.
To the east of the site and Main Rd., is a 1.4 acre parcel of land,
upon which is located the existing ferry terminal building. This
building now serves to house the ticket office, administrative office,
snack bar and waiting room. It will be converted to a snack bar upon
completion of the proposed new terminal building. Included on this
parcel is an unpaved parking lot serving ferry passengers and employees,
and a 60' x 12' mobile homo. The parking lot will continue in its
present use upon completion of the proposed project.
To the east of the existing ferry terminal is a vacant parcel of
land zoned MI-Multiple Residehttal. The site is bordered on the west
by a parcel which is now the site of a single-family residence. Further
to the west is the USDA Plum Island Ferry Terminal, followed by a marina
and restaurant. West of this parcel is located Orient State Park. The
Cross Sound Ferry Services site, along with all the waterfront land
up to the State Park is zoned BI-Business.
-9-
The remainder of the surrounding area, zoned A-Residential,
Agricultural, is rural ~ character, consisting mainly of small farms
and single family residences.
Demomraehv
The site is located in the Orient-East Marion school district.
According to the Long Island Lighting Co. Population Survey of 1983,
the population is 1,465. During the surmner months, population can
be expected to increase by'an undetermined amount due to second-
home use and tourism. The proposed project will not alter the
demography of the area.
Public Services
The site is within Fire District #25.
Public transportation to the ferry terminal is provided by
Suffolk Transit bus service, making 6 round trips daily between the
terminal and l~attituck. New York State Route 25 is the only highway
between Orient Point and Greenport.
Histpr%~% Resources
Although the site has been in use as a marine transportation
facility since the late 1700"s, nb structures or artifacts predatia%g
the latest 50 years of ferry service remain.
The property is not listed as an historical landmark, nor is it
listed on the National Register of Historical Locations.
-10-
The site is flat, partially paved, contains one small wood frame
structure adjacent to the loading ramp, and for all practical purposes,
devoid of vegetation.
Noise at the site and along Rt. 25 is generated by vehicles entering
. and departing the ferries and terminal area. Noise levels, with respect
to intensity, duration and 'frequency, depend upon ferry scheduling, the
number of vehicles using the ferry, and the mix of autos and truck
traffic. The highest volume of traffic, and therefore noise, can be
expected to occur during the period of June 18 to September 9, when 12
ferry arrivals and 12 departures per day are scheduled. With the
exception of the fall months, when a higher volume of farm produce is
being shipped to New England by trucks using the ferry, the volume of
truck traffic is fairly constant throughout the year. On a yearly basis,
trucks account for approximately ~/~ of all vehicles using the ferry.
Other than the very iow and usually unnoticeable odors generated
by vehicles entering or departing the terminal, no odors are generated.
Existin~ Environmental Constraints Affectinm Actium,
The site is shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #36083 0046C
for the Town of Southold. It lies within an A9 zone, which requires a
first floor elevation of any proposed buildings to be +11' above mean
sea level. This will be attained by the placement of approximately
-11-
3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill existing on the site as a
result of ferry slip maintenance dredging.
Statement of Environmental Effects
The proposed action, being limited to the paving of an existing
vehicle sta~in~ area, which is now largely paved, the addition of
a relatively small (46' x42') terminal building, along with an
· improved waste water disposal system, a surface water runoff control
system, and vegetative landscaping, represents no increase in the
capacity of the terminal to accom~date passe, ers az~d vehicles. It's
enviror~ental effects will, therefore, be limited by the mlnlmal
nature of the proposed elements of the project.
It is anticipated that dust and noise levels will rise during
construction. This effect will be transitory, and cease upon
completion of the work. Dust levels due to vehicle traffic on unpaved
portions of the site, although low, are expected to be lowez- after
paving is completed.
2
The existing impervious pavement on the site consists of 42,000 ft
2 2
of paved surface and 440 ft of building coverage. Approximately 3600 ft
of the site is vegetated with naturally occurring low grasses and weeds.
Upon completion of the project, the impervious surface represented by
paving, the terminal buildi~ and'a sidewalk will amount to an ar~a
2 2
of 41,020 ft . This decrease in impervious surface of 1,420 ft is
2
accounted for by the conversion of 9700 ft of existing area, mostly
paved, to landscaped area. Since the resultant impervious surface
will be served by a surface water runoff control system, while the
larger area of existing impervious surface is not, the project will
-12-
result in a positive environmental impact with respect
to rainwater runoff control and siltation.
The proposed waste water disposal system represents
an improvement over the existing cesspools, and is there-
fore considered to be a positive environmental impact.
While the proposed new water well will draw upon
the existing ground water reservoir, the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services has required the applicant
to participate in th~ formation of a communitY water
supply to serve the area as a condition of final approval
of that agency.
Daily fresh water demand for the terminal facility
will be 2250'gallons with a peak demand of 22,500 gallons
a day, or 15.6 gallons/minute.
Since the project does not increase the capability
of the terminal to handle larger numbers of vehicles,
it will not, in and of itself, increase the volume of
traffic. Traffic, with the noise and disturbance it
creates, is however, an important issue in the'local com-
munity, and must be addressed.
Annual ridership for the years 1981 through 1983
is shown below. DurinE this period, an increase in a~l
categories of ridership was experienced, with the most
dramatic increase being for 1983. During that year,
131,300 vehicles, of which 12,000 or 9.14% were heavy
trucks, Were carried. This was an increase of 24,800
passenger vehicles and 2,000 trucks over 1982. The increase
-13-
in vehicle traffic is accounted for by the replacement
of the ferry "Plum Island", with a capacity of 20-22
autos, by the "Henlopen", which is capable of carrying
95-100 autos. The number of trucks that can be carried
is dependent upon the size of the trucks in relation to
the number of cars they replace.
Annual Ridership
Orient Point - New London
Passenger Heavy Total
Year PassenMers * Vehicles Trucks Vehicles
1981 257,920 97,000 7,000 104,000
1982 259,160 94,500 10,000 104,500
1983 325,624 119,300 12,000 131,300
*Includes drivers
The greatest number of passengers and vehicles are
carried during the period of June to September. During
this period, tourist and vacationer activity is at a peak,
requiring the use of 3 ferry boats to fulfill a schedule
of 12 arrivals and 12 departures on a daily basis. Demand
is generally high enough to fill all boats, and on week-
ends passengers may have to wait for the next available
boat. It is only during this period that the largest-
ferry, the "Henlopen" is in service.
During the period of November to March, demand
decreases to a level that can be met by one boat making
3 to 4 arrivals and departures daily. The reader is
referred to the 1984 Ferry Schedule contained in the
-14-
appendices for details of the annual schedule of
service.
It is expected that annual ridership and vehicle
traffic will increase by a small margin when the ferry
"Caribbean" is replaced by a new boat the "North Star"
in May or June of 1984. The North Star has a capacity
of D5 autos and 200 passengers, as compared to the
Caribbean with 22 cars and 120 passengers. During the
period of heaviest traffic, from June 18 to September 9,
the North Star is scheduled to make 4 arrivals and 4
departures daily. Assuming that every run is filled
to maximum capacity (which is unlikely) traffic would
be increased.by 104 autos trips daily during this period.
As with past increases in ridership, it can be
expected that future increases will come as a result of
demand and ferry scheduling and capacity increases to
meet that demand, not upon terminal facility improvements.
The effect that the proposed terminal improvements will
have upon increasing the demand for ferry service is
highly speculative. In a 1980 survey of passengers
(New York State Department of Transportation, 1981) the
most common complaints .concerned the cost of service,
the congestion at the access terminal, and the infrequency
of service. While the proposed project will increase the
orderliness and efficiency of the terminal operation, it
does not increase the available upland space, will not
result in a reduction of fares, and will not increase
ferry capacity or scheduling frequency.
-15-
Future ridership on the Cross Sound Ferry from Orient
Point to New London, although predicted to increase (New
York State Department of Transportation, t981), will de-
pend on such factors as gasoline prices, road congestion,
the availability of ferry services at alternate locations,
and fare increases. Should ferry service between Port
Jefferson and Bridgeport be improved and expanded, and/or
a third service be initiated at some westerly location,
as recommended by the Long Island Sound Ferry Service
Improvement Study (New York State Department of Transpor-
tation, 1981), it is likely that demand for the Orient
Point ferry will level-off or decrease, depending upon
the extent of alternative services.
Identification of any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided
Any increase in traffic that might be generated as
a result of the proposed traffic, are unpredictable and
unavoidable.
As the parcel is already developed and privately
owned, there will be no significant loss of open space
or access to the water for the general public.
Description of Mitigation Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects
The planned adherence to regulatory restructions on
all levels will mitigate the impact of the project.
The rainwater runoff control system will mitigate
the effects of runoff from the paved area and terminal
building.
-16-
The architectural design of the terminal building
and the landscaping will improve esthetic and visual
qualities of the site.
Improved efficiency with respect to passenger check-
in and vehicle traffic control will relieve congestion
on the local roads.
The improved wastewater disposal system will decrease
groundwater contamination.
Identification of Any Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources
The usage of fossil fuels to power construction
equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible, as is
the consumption of electrical power by tools.
D~escriotion of Any Growth-InducinM Aspects of the Action
The proposed action will have no growth effects
upon local area.
.~mpact of the Action on the Use and Conservation of Energ3
During the construction phase, energy in the
of fossil fuels and electricity will be consumed.
completion, the terminal building will be heated by
modern, efficient equipment, and will be adequately
insulated to minimize energy consumption.
form
Upon
-17-
Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives
To Achieve .the Same or Similar Objectives
The only reasonable alternative is to continue
operation of the ferry terminal under existing conditions.
While ridership and capacity would be little affected, if
at all, this alternative would result in continued incon-
venience to passengers in the form of inadequate lounge,
waiting room, snack bar and sanitary facilities. Congestion
on local roads by vehicles waiting to enter the staging
area would continue, and ferry company management would
be denied the opportunity to initiate needed operational
and administrative improvements and efficiencies.
-18-
Studies, Reports and Literature Used in Preparation of DEIS
Austin, G. L. Jr., 1961. Water and N~rsh Birds of the
World.
Butt, William H. et.al., 1964. A Field Guide to the
Mammals, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Miner, R. W., 1950. Field Book of Seashore Life, G. P.
Putnam's Sons, New York.
Nassau and Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1979.
Water Study, Hauppauge, New York.
"208"
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975. Soil Survey of
Suffolk County, Riverhead, New York.
New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Summary
of Findings, Long Island Sound Ferry Service Improve-
ment Study.
New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Executive
Summary and Recommendations, Long Island Sound Ferry
Service. Improvement Study.
Long Island Lighting Coo, 1983o Population Survey: Current
Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
-19-
2 FERRY STREET ° P.O. BOX 33 ° NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT 06320-0033 ° (203) 443-7394
March 8, 1984
Mr. James C. McHahon
Southold Community Development
Agency
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Jim:
Enclosed please find a copy of our 1984 ferry schedule. We are planning to
run three ferry boats this summer to Orient Point, Long Island and one ferry
boat to Montauk, Long Island.
The ferry boats going to Orient Point will carry the following number of
vehicles and passengers:
1. M/V Caribbean - 22 cars 149 passengers
2. M/V Cape Henlopen - 85 cars 800 passengers
3. M/V New London - 45 cars 295 passengers
With regard to your question concerning the exact portion of the road the state owns,
that information is indicated on the site plan which has been forwarded to
the town.
Enclosure
RM/cm
General Manager
Southoid Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2c, SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Appeal No. 3219
Application Dated February ]6, ]984
TO: Mr. Howard Young
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
[Appellant(s)]
At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on April ]9, ]984
the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken
on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property
New YorkTown Law, Section 280-a
[ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance
Article , Section
[×] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
Article VII , Sections ]00-70 and ]00-7]
[ ] Request for
The public hearing concerning this matter was held on April 5, 1984,
at which time the hearing was declared closed pending deliberations.
Application of CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., Box 33, New London,
CT 06730 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section
lO0-70(A) and Section 100-71 for permission to: [a] construct principal
building with an insufficient frontyard setback from the easterly property
line and [b] establish a ferry-terminal use in this B-1 Business District.
Location of Property: 42175 Main Road, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel
No;, lO00-O15-09-11.
The board made the following findings and determination:
By this application, appellant seeks permission to construct a
40' by 50' ferry terminal building as shown on the site plan submitted
with the application February 16, 1984 which would have a setback from
the easterly property line (abutting property of "Hicks") of 25 feet
(and from the Route 25 property line of 30 feet).. The setback from the
westerly property line (abutting property now or formerly of "Blauvelt")
is 40 feet at its nearest point. Also proposed is a 4' by 8' ticket
booth which will be set back approximately 20 feet from the westerly
property line and 12 feet west of the proposed terminal building. This
is an appeal from the January 18, 1984 decision of the building inspector
requiring a variance for a ferry terminal in a B-1 Zone since such use
is only listed as a permitted use in the C-Light Industrial and C-1
General Industrial Districts by Special Exception and site plan approvals,
(see Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B)[ll] and Article IX, Section 100-91).
The premises in question is zoned "B-1 General Business" and
contains an area of approximately 1.5 acres, as identified by the
Suffolk County Tax Map, District 1000, Section 015, Block 9, Lot ll.
Premises located on both the west and east sides are also zoned "B-1
General Business." Premises immediately abutting the "Hicks" five-foot
strip on the east is New York State Route 25, which is an improved
road extending southerly to Gardiners Bay. East of Route 25 is other
premises of Cross Sound Ferry Services which is also zoned "B-1
General Business" with an existing one-story building previously used
as a snack bar-restaurant. Premises to the south of the subject parcel
was conveyed on February 3, 1975 from the New London Freight Lines, Inc.
to Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. which includes underwater land as
shown at Liber 7827 cp 477-479 and Suffolk County Tax Map, District
lO00, Section 015, Block 9, Lot 16 and an existing ferry-terminal booth
(CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO)
DATED: May 7, 1984. CHAZRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81)
ZA L )
~ EARTH
C-ONC ~EI'E
~?
%~='
INC.
Pa.ge 2 Appeal No. 3219
Matter of CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES,
Decision Rendered April 19, 1984
has been used as such since prior to zoning in 1957.
All of the members of this board are familiar with the property
in question as well as the surrounding properties. Also, the board
members are familiar with the statements given at the public hearing
both in favor of and against the application, and general comments.
In considering this application, the board determines that since
it is the applicant's proposal to relocate the existing ferry
terminal building (which is south-east of the subject premises) onto
the subject 1.5-acre parcel within this B-1 zoning district, that:
(1) the relief will not produce adverse effects on available govern-
mental facilities of any increased population; (2) the relief
requested will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes
and intent of zoning; (3) the use will not prevent the orderly and
reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent
use districts; (4) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable
use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein
this use is to be located, or of permitted or legally established uses
in adjacent use districts; (5) the circumstances are unique and the
variance requested is not substantial; (6) the safety, health, wel-
fare, comfort, convenience, and order of the town will not be
adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (7) the
plot area is sufficient, appropriate and incompliance with the bulk
schedule for the reasonable use and anticipated operation as applied;
and additionally that the relief requested will not change the
character of the neighborhood and will provide additional parking
on this site which as exists is limited.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr.
Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3219, application for CROSS SOUND
FERRY SERVICES, INC. for permission to construct ferry-terminal
buildings as shown on the site plan dated January 21, 1984, B___~E
AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That a six-inch asphalt lip be constructed on the easterly
side of applicant's property to retain water allowing proper
drainage on this site;
2. That the building depicted "ticket office" existing at
this time be removed as agreed; and if relocated be used only for
storage purposes;
3. That the present ticket off~ce in the building known as
the snack bar easterly of Route 25 be discontinued when the new
ticket office is constructed, or when directed by the Buildingj
Inspector, whichever is sooner;
4. That the area shaded in "red" shall be slated a
"No-Parking Zone";
5. After completion and upon notice, a final inspection
and acceptance by the Z.B.A. for this proposal.
Location of Property: 42175 Main Road, Orient, NY; County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-15-9-11.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TO%VN CT.~RK
Town Cle~k, Tow~. ot So.old
GERARD P. GOEHR~INGER, CHAIRMAN
May /o-, l 984 ~
HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman
JAMES WALL
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr.
GEORGE RITCHIE LATH,SM, Jr.
WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr.
8outhold, N.Y. 11971
December 6, 1983
Mr. George H. Fisher
Sr. Building Inspector
Southold Town Hall
$outhold, New York 11971
Re: Certification of Site Plan
Cross Sound Ferry
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Your correspondence regarding the above was reviewed
and discussed at length at our regular meeting of November
21, 1983. This report was noted in our minutes as being a
very thorough and informative report, as all aspects of this
proposal were very well addressed.
It was the concensus of our Board to thank you for your
time and effort in preparing this excellent report.
TELEPHONE
765-1938
Very truly yours,
HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
cc: Victor Lessard
By Susan E. Long, Secretary
HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman
JAMES WALL
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr.
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr.
WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr.
i)
Southold, N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE
765- 1988
December 5, 1983
Mr. Richard Mac Murray
Cross Sound Ferry Service,
Box 33
New London, CT 06320
Inc.
Re:
Site Plan
Cross Sound Ferry
Dear Mr. Mac Murray:
Enclosed please find correspondence fr~m George H. Fisher,
Sr. Building Inspector with regard to our request for certif-
ication of the above site.
Based on this information we would request that you supply
our office with revised plans indicating those areas that have
been omitted from the plans we have at present. We would also
request a copy of the ferry schedule, number of vessels in oper-
ation, number of passengers and cars each vessel holds and in-
formation with regard to the exact portion of the road the state
owns.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
By Susan E. Long, Secretary
Enc.
TOWN OF SOUTHOI.I~
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
~EL. 76:5-1802
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 3, 1983
Planning Board members
George H. Fisher, Sr. Building
Planning Board letter dated Oct.
site plan of "Cross Sound Ferry"
Inspector
Inspector
12, 1983 referring
to the Building
SITE PLAN SUBMITTED
"Site Sketch Cross Sound Ferry Terminal" prepared by
Young & Young, dated April 20, 1983.
PARCELS (AS ON TAX ROLL)
lots:
In Section
11, owned
12, owned
13, "
14 , "
Area of
15, Block 9 (on the county tax Map),
by Cross Sound Ferry Service, Inc.
by Hicks, Mary Jane
Nathanson, Peter
Cross Sound Ferry Service, Inc.
State Highway and/or property.
including
ZONED
The entire site is zoned B-1 on Section E (amended 12/5/78)
of the Building Zone Map of the Town of Southold.
USE
A Ferry Terminal is not listed as a permitted use in this
B-1 zoned district, 100-70. Ferry Terminal is a permitted use
by special exception in the C zoned district, 100-80 B (1),
accessory (not separate business), 100-80 C (1) and signs,
100-60 C (2).
FROFOSED AND COMMENTS
The sketch plan shows expansion of the pre-existing Ferry
Terminal use to lots 12, 13, 14, and 15. This requires a
variance for uses that are only permitted in a C zoned district
by special exception, Terminal, 100-80B~ Snack Bar as eating
and drinking, 100-13, or accessory {not separate business),
100-80 C (1), signs, 100-80 C (2). Application is needed for a
variance and special exception to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
11 /3/83
Planning Board
"Cross Sound Ferry"
site plan Page 2
STATE
The site sketch shows area owned by the state. Access to the
state highway or their property needs state's approval.
TERMINAL BUILDING
A variance is needed to locate the Terminal Building with
insufficient yard setback, 100-61. I am assuming that lot 12
will be owned or under the site plan so as the front yard of
the Terminal will be 12 feet from the street line.
OFF-STREET PARKING
Reasonable off-street parking shall be provided and the re-
quirement shall be determined by the Planning Board. The shown
spaces scale 10 x 20' as required. No calculation of the park-
ing area is shown. 83 spaces at 350 square feet needs 29050 sq.
feet, 100-112 C. No indication of parking surface (dust free)
or drainage within the premises, 100-112 E. Consideration for
combine terminal and snack bar-restaurant, 100-112 F. (Eating
places require one space for each five seats, 100-112 A.) Park-
ing within 15 feet adjacent to lots in residence district (Zoned
A) shall be screened, 3' to 8', 100-112 K (1) and 100-112 K (2),
3' to 6'.
HANDICAP
According to Zoning, Art. XIV, Sec. 141, states all appli-
cable laws. The State Construction Code C, Sec. C215 and State
Law, Chapter 203 of 1981, refer to the need of providing for
the handicapped like parking, ramps at curbs and into buildings,
telephones, etc. Such information should be shown on the site
plan.
100-134
Site plan should show any lights, 100-134 D (3), signs (4),
screening (6), water and sewer locations (7).
GHF:ec
George H. Fisher
Sr. Building Inspector
HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman
JAMES WALL
BENNETT ORLOWSIO, Jr.
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr.
WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr.
Southold, N.Y. 11971
October 12, 1983
Mr. Victor Lessard
Building Administrator
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Cross Sound Ferry
Site Plan
Dear Mr. Lessard:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board, Tuesday, October 11, 1983.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board refer
the site plan "Cross Sound Ferry" to the Building Department
for certification.
Three copies have been attached for your review.
TELEPHONE
765-1938
Very truly yours,
HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Attch.
By Susan E. Long, Secretary
HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr., Chairman
JAMES WALL
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr.
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, Jr.
WILLIAM F. MULLEN, Jr.
$outhold, N.Y. 11971
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TELEPHONE
765-1938
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6NYCRR Part 617, Section
617.10 and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, notice is
hereby given that Southold Town Planning Board as lead agency for
the action described below has determined that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The Site pl.a~ for Cross Sound Ferry Services, located at
Orient for the construction of a ferry terminal.
The project has been determined not to have a significant
effect on the environment for the following reasons:
An environmental assessment has been submitted which
indicated that no significant adverse effects to the
environment were likely to occur should the project
be implemented as planned.
Because there has been no correspondence from the Department
of Health Services within the alotted time, it has been deemed
that there are no comments or concerns from that agency.
Because there has been no correspondence from the Department
of Environmental Conservation in the alo~ted time it has been
deemed that there are no comments or concerns from that
agency.
The project will meet all the requirements of the Code
of the Town of Southold Subdivision of Land Regulations.
Further information can be obtained by contacting D~ane M. Schultze
Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board, Main Road, ~outhold, New York
11971
Copies mailed to the following;
Robert Flack, DEC Commissioner
NYS, DEC at Stony Brook
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Planning Commission
Francis J. Murphy
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for
Ferry Terminal Facilities
by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
PREPARED BY:
Eh-COnsultants, Inc.
64 North Main Street
Southampton, New York 11968
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of apendices .................................
Summary ...........................................
Description of Action .............................
Description of Environmental Setting
Environmental Features of the Site
Slopes and Topography .~]i'[i~' ' .....
Land Forms ' ' · .....
Erosion and Sedimentation Potential .....
Hydrology .......
Surfa ;' i;; ........................
Groundwater ......................
Ecology .....
Vegetation .....
Wildlife .......
Land Use .............................
Demography'~i~i'~ .......................
Public Services
Visual Character . ..
Noise Levels .... !!i!i!!i!!!!.!!i!!!!~..~!ii!~
Odor Levels ..... . ....
Existing Environmental Constraint Affecting Action
Statement of Environmental Effects
Identification of Any Adverse Effects Which Cannot
Be Avoided ........................
Description of ~itigation ~easures to Minimize
Adverse Effects ....................
Identification of Any ~rreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources .[ .........
Description of Any Growth-Inducing Aspects of the
Action ..........................................
Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation
of Energy ..........................
Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives
To Achieve the Same or Similar Objectives ........
Studies, Reports and Literature Used in Preparation
of DEIS
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
?
8
8
8
9
10
10
lO
11
11
I1
2
12
16
16
~7
17
19
18
17
List of Appendices
1. Proposed site plan by Young & Young.
2. Preliminary terminal building plans.
3. Site location map.
4. Water analysis laboratory report by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell.
5. 1984 ferry schedule.
6. Town of Southold Planning Board letter of April 2, 1984 acknowledging
Planning Board approval of site plan.
7. Photographs of the site taken March 16, 1984.
-1-
SUMMARY
The applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., seeks all
necessary approvals to construct upland ferry terminal facilities
on the site of their existing ferry terminal vehicle staging area.
The project ts to consist of a terminal building, paved vehicle
staging area, and paved entrance andes'
The site with an area of 2.2 acres, is presently extensively
paved, and is being used as a vehicle staging area. It contains one
small wood frame structure of 440 ft which w~kll be ¥,mnv~ or
replaced to a new location.
The proposed terminal building, a 2 story, 48' x 42', Cape Cod
style structure, will be used to house the ferry administrative
office, waiting area, ticket offlce, passenger lounge and restrooms.
A one story wood frame structure, which presently serves these
functions on an adjacent parcel of land, will be converted to a snack
bar for use by ferry passengers.
The issues that have been identified with the proposed project
1. Generation of increased traffic
2. Availability of adequate water supply
The parcel is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, N.Y. --
Site plan approval has been granted by the Southold Planning
Board.
Variances for front yard setbacks and to locate a ferry terminal
in a B-1Businesa zone have been granted by the ~own of Southold Zoning
-2-
Board of Appeals.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services has issued preliminary
approval for the waste water dtsposal system and water supply.
Tidal Wetlands (Article 25) permits from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation are not required as all work
will be landward of an existing retaining wall.
Descriotion of Action
The applicant, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., proposes to
construct upland ferry terminal facilities on the site of the existing
ferry terminal vehicle staging area. The project is to consist of a
terminal building, paved vehicle staging area, ~ paved entrance ~d
exit driveways..
The purpose of the project ts to provide improved service and
conveniences to ferry users, and to facilitate more efficient operation
~nd maintenance of terminal operations and facilities.
Existing terminal facilities are located on 2 parcels of land East
and West of Main Rd. at the Easterly terminus of Rt. 25. A one story
wood frame building, serving as a business office, ticket office,
waiting area, lounge and vending machine snack bar, is situated on the
1.4 acre parcel East of M~ain Rd., along with an unpaved parking lot,
cesspool wastewater disposal'syst~m and water well. -
Ail terminal construction and improvements are to take place on
the. 2.2 acre parcel West of Main Rd., which is the existing, partially
paved vehicle staging area. A small, one story wood frame building
2
(440 ft ), serving as a waiting room, situated adjacent to the ferry
loading r~mp, will be removed or relocated.
The proposed terminal building, a 48' x42', 2 story Cape-Cod
style structure, will house the ferry administrative office, ticket
office, waiting area, passenger lounge and restrooms. The second floor
will be used for bulk storage. The reader is referred to the architect~
drawings in the appendioes for further details of the propos~ building.
A paved vehicle etaging area, yith a 156~ is proposed
South of the terminal building. Although this area is now partially
~ paved, full paving is required for the purpose of ma~king vehicle
lanes, and to facilitate snow removal, surface cleanup and maintenance.
Paved entrance and exit driveways are also proposed.
Prior to construction of the terminal building and paved areas,
the elevation of the land will be raised to a maximum of +11.0' by
the addition of approximately 3000 cubic yards of sand and gravel fill
which is now on the site, and was obtained from maintenance dredging
of the ferry slip. Existing and proposed elevation contours are shown
~n the site plan in the appendices.
Sewage disposal will be accomplished by an on-site septic tank
and leaching pool system, consisting of one 4500 gallon septic tank,
a distribution pool and a field of leaching pools capable of handling
2250 gallons per day.
Potable water will be provided by a well, the exact location of
which is pending Suffolk County D~partment of Health Services inpmt and
approval. However, a test well dug on the site provided water meeting
New York State and U.S. drinking water standards. The reader is referred
to the engineer~ water analysis contained in the appendices.
Surface runoff will be contained by the installation of French
Drains, in three separate locations. The reader is referred to the
-4-
engineer's site plan, contained in the appendices, for further details,
including those of the septic and drainage systems.
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has been owned by the applicant
since 1975 when it was purchased from the New London Freight Lines.
Ferry service to New London, Connecticut has been operated from this
site since at least the early 1930's and the site has served marine
transportation since at least 1797. Maps on file at the Suffolk County
· Historical Museum in Riverhead, N.Y. show a dock named "Point Dock" at
this location in 1797, "Steamboat Wharf" in Atlas' of 1873 and 1896,
aud "Point Dock" in a 1909 "Map of a Section of Suffolk County, L.I.".
Newspaper clippings on file at the museum, dated July 15, 1948 and
August 26~ 1948, refer to the addition of two new ferries, the "Orient"
and the "Gay Head". The Orient was a 204' vessel capable of accomo-
~ ~ dating 68 autos and 300 passengers, and the Gay Head was a 203' vessel
of unstated capacity. At that time, the ferries were making 6 runs
daily, between Orient Point and New London.
aanPdp The need for this project derives from the obligation of the
licant to provide adequate services and facilities ~to___ferry users,,
to allow for more efficient and effective terminal operation.
It is anticipated that the work will cormmence upon receipt of all
necessary approvals, and be completed by March 1985.
Description of Environmental Settinm
The site is located in the hamlet of Orient, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. It is bounded on the north
by Rt. 25, on the east by Main Rd., on the west by a Parcel zoned
-5-
Bi-Business, n.o.f. Blauvelt, ~hIch is the site of a one-family private
residence, and on the south by Gardiners Bay.
Environmental Features of the Sit,
As indicated on sheet 4 of Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York
(USNA, 1975), the entire parcel is classified as Fd, Fill Land, Dredged
Material. It is described as follows:
"Fill land, dredged m~terial (Fd), is made up of areas that
have been filled with material from hydraulic or mechanical
dredging operations. These operations are used mainly to
widen or deepen boat channels in salt water; however, some
dredged material has been obtained from new channels cut into
tidal marshes. Most of the dredged material ia pumped onto
tidal marshes. Smaller a~ounta are placed on beaches and
dunes and on nearby mineral soils in a few places.
The practice generally is to dike aR area by using on-site
material. The dredgings are then pumped into the diked area
and allowed to settle. Excess water drains back into the bay.
After the water drains off, heterogeneous deposits of sand,
gravel and sea shells remain. In many places a dark-gray silty
mud remains. Protective dunes have been built with clean sand
and gravel dredgings in some places, and in such places a few
naturally formed dunes are included in mapping.
Fill land, dredged material, is not suited to farming. Areas
are satisfactory for building sites where the fill is adequate
and if the highly compressible organic layers in the tidal
marshes are removed prior to filling. Areas where the fill
is placed on marshes containing thick organic layers are
likely to be unstable and need on-site investigation before
building on them.
Droughttness, low fertil'ity,'and high salt content severely _
limit the establishment of lawns and other landscape plantings.
Cesspools do not function properly where the ground water
is at a shallow depth. Capability unit not assigned; woodland
suitability group not assigned."
~looes and ToDo~raDhV
Elevations on the site vary between 4.7' and 8~3', with most
of the site lying between 4.7' and 6.0'. As can be seen from the
-6-
contours on the site plan, the site is flat, with little slope.
Land Forms
No land forms of geologic significance are located on the site.
Most of the site is paved, and seaward of the retaining wall and west
of the seawall is a coarse sand and gravel beach.
Mineral Resources
No mineral resources occur on the site.
Erosion and Sedimentation Potential
Rapid water percolation through sand plus the flatness of the
terrain combine to cause little erosion and/or sedimentation potential.
The site is protected from shore erioston by the seawalls and retaining
wall as shown on the site plan.
Hvdrolomv
Surface Water
The site is bordered on the south by Gardiners Bay, a large
tidal body of water lying between the Eastern North and South Forks
of Long Island. It's mean tide range is 2.5', and it's spring tide
range is 3.0'. The NYSDEC h~s cl~sstfied it as SA, the highest -
classification for tidal waters. These waters are "... suitable for
shellfishtng for market purposes and primary and secondary contact
recreation." The area is presently open to shellfishtng.
Groundwater
The site lies within the Nassau-Suffolk 208 Study Water
-7--
Management Zone IV. Zone IV comprises the North Fork and the eastern
part of the South Fork. The "208 Study" (Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1978) describes Zone IV as having "unique groundwater
conditions, and special management alternatives apply to it.
Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations in wells located in agricultural areas that are above
six milligrams per liter, with many observations exceeding ten milli-
grams per liter. Although groundwater underlying agricultural ares
shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential
areas still have good quality water, and statistical examination of
over 300 analyses from domestic wells located on the North Fork indi-
cates that almost all have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less
than three milligrams per liter."
Laboratory test results from an on-site test well 18' deep show
the ground water quality to be satisfactory. The reader is .referred
to the appendices for results of the engineers water analysis.
~colo~y
Since the site is partially paved, heavily traveled by
vehicles using the ferry, and is periodically used as a temporary
repository for dredge spoil,'vege'tation, with the exception of low
grasses and weeds along it's perimeter, is non-existent.
Wildli~9
Due to the conditions stated above, and the intensive nature
of human use of the site, wildlife is l~mited to those species able to
exist in close proximity to man and his development.
-g-
During several visits to the site, a list of animals noted
was kept. Birds noted can be divided into two categories: Upland
and shorebirds/waterfowl. Of the former mourning doves, sparrows,
robins, grackles, swallows and starlings were noted. The latter is
represented by gulls and te.~r~e.~
Observations of ma~nals during site visits indicated
cottontail rabbit and mice (probably meadow moles).
The sits has been used as a part of the ferry terminal operation
since at least the early 1930's. It is used as the staging area for
vehicles waiting to board the ferry.
To the east of the site and Main Rd., is a 1.4 acre parcel of land,
upon which is located the existing ferry terminal building. This
building now serves to house the ticket office, administrative office,
snack bar and waiting room. It will be converted to a snack bar upon
completion of the proposed new terminal building. Included on this
parcel is an unpaved parking lot serving ferry passengers and employees,
ll-and~ a 60' x 12' mobile home. The parking lot will continue in its
~resent use upon completion of the proposed project.
To the east of the existing ferry terminal is a vacant parcel of
land zoned MI-Multiple Residehtial. The site is bordered on the west
by a parcel which is now the site of a single-family residence. Further
to the west is the USDA Plum Island Ferry Terminal, followed by a marina
and restaurant. West of this parcel is located Orient State Park. The
Cross Sound Ferry Services site, along with all the waterfront land
up to the State Park is zoned BI-Business.
The remainder of the surrounding area, zoned A-Residential,
Agricultural, is rural in character, consisting mainly of small farms
and single family residences.
The site is located in the Orient-East Marion ~chool district.
According to the Long Island Lighting Co. Population Survey of 1983,
the population is 1,465. During the sunrner months, population can
be expected to increase by an undetermined amount due to second-
home use and tourism. The proposed project will not alter the
demography of the area.
The site is within Fire District #25.
Public transportation to the ferry terminal is provided by
Suffolk Transit bus service, making 6 round trips daily between the
terminal and Mattituck. New York State ROute 25 is the only highway
between Orient Point and Greenport.
Historical Resource~
Although the site has been in use as a marine transportation
facility since the late 1700"s, nD structures or artifacts predating
the latest 50 years of ferry service remain.
The property is not listed as an historical landmark, nor is it
listed on the National Register of Historical Locations.
-10-
V' u i Ch t r
The site is flat, partially paved, contains one small wood frame
structure adjacent to the loading ramp, and for all practical purposes,
devoid of vegetation.
Noise at the site and along Rt. 25 is generated by vehicles entering
~ and departing the ferries and terminal area. Noise levels, with respect
to intensity, duration and frequency, depend upon_ferry scheduling, the
number of vehicles using the ferry, and the mix of autos and truck
traffic. The highest volume of traffic, and therefore noise, can be
expected to occur during the period of 3une 18 to September 9, when 12
~~rtures per d~_ay are scheduled. With the
exception of the fall months, when a higher volume of farm produce is
being shipped to New England by trucks using the ferry, the volume of
truck traffic is fairly constant throughout the year. On a yearly basis,
trucks account for approximately 9% of all vehicles using the ferry.
Other than the very low and usually unnoticeable odors generated
by vehicles entering or departing the terminal, no odors are generated.
Existin~ Environmental Constraints Affectin~ Actio~
The site is shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #36083 0046C
for the Town of Southold. It lies within an A9 zone, which requires a
first floor elevation of any proposed buildings to be +11' above mean
sea level. This will be attained by the placement of approximately
-11-
3000 cubic yarde of sand and gravel fill existing on the site as a
result of~ ferry__y_y_y s~lip ma~A~tenance~ dredging.
Statement of Environmental Effectm
The proposed action, being limited to the paving of an existing
vehicle etaging area, which is now largely paved, the addition of
a relatively ~nall (46' x42') terminal building, along with an
· improved waste water disposal system, a surface water runoff control
,./system, and vegetative landscaping, represe__nts l~k i~rease in the
capacity of the terminal to accomodate passengers and veb{~]-~. It's
4envir°nmental..effe~-~l, ther~efore, b~-~mited by_~.~A~lnima1
nature of the propoaed~_91e~~ject.
It is anticipated that dust and noise levels will rise during
construction. This effect will be transitory, and cease upon
completion of the work. Dust levels due to vehicle traffic on unpaved
portions of the site, although Iow, are expected to be lowel- after
paving is completed.
2
The existing impervious pavement on the site consists of 42,000 ft
2 2
of paved surface and 440 ft of building coverage. Approximately 3600 ft
of the site is vegetated with naturally occurring low grasses and weeds.
Upon completion of the project, the impervious surface represented by
paving, the terminal building' and'a sidewalk will amount to an arb
2 2
of 41,020 ft . This decrease in impervious surface of 1,420 ft is
2
accounted for by the conversion of 9700 ft of existing area, mostly
paved, to landscaped area. Since the resultant impervious surface
will be served by a surface water runoff control system, while the
larger area o~ existing impervious surface is not, the project will
-12-
result in a positive environmental impact with respect
to rainwater runoff control and siltation.
The proposed waste water disposal system represents
an improvement over the existing cesspools, and is there-
fore considered to be a positive environmental impact.
While the proposed new water well will draw upon
//Pep rtment of Health Services has required the applicant
theaeXisting ground water reservoir, the Suffolk County
,,to participate in the formation of a community water
supply to serve the area as a condition of final approval
of that agency.
Daily fresh water demand for the terminal facility
will be 2250 gallons with a peak demand of 22,500 gallons
a day, or 15.6 gallons/minute.
// Since the project does not increase the capability
of the terminal to handle larger numbers of vehicles,
it will not, in and of itself, increase the volume of
traffic. Traffic, with the noise and disturbance it
creates, is however, an important issue in the'local com-
munity, and must be addressed.
Annual ridership for the years 1981 through 1983
is shown below. Durin~ this period, an increase in a~l
categories of ridership was experienced, with the most
dramatic increase being for 1983. During that year,
i31,300 vehicles, of which 12,000 or 9.14% were heavy
trucks, were carried. This was an increase of 24,800
passenger vehicles and 2,000 trucks over 1982. The increase
in vehicle traffic is accounted for by the replacement
of the ferry "Plum Island", with a capacity of 20-22
autos, by the "Henlopen", which is capable of carrying
95-100 autos. The number of trucks that
is dependent upon the size of the trucks
the number of cars they replace.
can be carried
in relation to
Annual Ridership
Orient Point - New London
Passenger Heavy Total
Year Passengers * Vehicles Trucks Vehicles
1981 257,920 97,000 7,000 104,000
1982 259,160 94,500 10,000 104,500
1983 325,624 119,300 12,000 131,300
*Includes drivers
The greatest number of passengers and vehicles are
carried during the period of June to September. ~uring
this period, tourist and vacationer activity is at a peak,
requiring the use of 3 ferry boats to fulfill a schedule
of 12 arrivals and 12 departures on a daily basis. Demand
is generally high enough to fill all boats, and on week-
ends passengers may have to wait for the next available
boat. It is only during t~is period that the largest~
ferry, the "Henlopen" is in service.
During the period of November to March, demand
decreases to a level that can be met by one boat making
3 to 4 arrivals and departures daily. The reader is
referred to the 1984 Ferry Schedule contained in the
-14-
appendices for details of the annual schedule of
service.
It is'expected that annual ridership and vehicle
traffic will increase by a small margin when the ferry
"Caribbean" is replaced by a new boat the "North Star"
in May or June of 1984. The North Star has a capacity
of 35 autos and 200 passengers, as compared to the
Caribbean with 22 cars and 120 passengers. During the
period of heaviest traffic,
the North Star is scheduled
departures daily. Assuming
from June 18 to September 9,
to make 4 arrivals and 4
that every run is filled
to maximum capacity (which is unlikely) traffic would
be increased.by 104 autos trips daily during this period.
e~xpecAS with past increases in ridership, it can be
ted that future increases will come as a result of
demand and ferry scheduling and capacity increases to
meet that demand, not upon terminal facility improvements.
The effect that the proposed terminal improvements will
have upon increasing the demand for ferry service is
highly speculative. In a 1980 survey of passengers
(New York State Department of Transportation, 1981) the
most common complaints concerned the cost of service,
the congestion at the access terminal, and the infrequency
of service. While the proposed project will increase the
orderliness and efficiency of the terminal operation, it
does not increase the available upland space, will not
result in a reduction of fares, and will not. increase
ferry capacity or scheduling frequency.
-15-
Future ridership on the Cross Sound Ferry from Orient
Point to l~ew London, although predicted to increase (New
York State Department of Transportation, 1981), will de-
pend on such factors as gasoline prices, road congestion,
the availability of ferry services at alternate locations,
and fare increases. Should ferry service between Port
Jefferson and Bridgeport be improved and expanded, and/or
a third service be initiated at some westerly location,
as recommended by the Long Island Sound Ferry Service
Improvement Study (New York State Department of Transpor-
tation, 1981), it is likely that demand for the Orient
Point ferry will level-off or decrease, depending upon
the extent of alternative services.
Identification of any Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided
Any increase in traffic that might be generated as
a result of the proposed traffic, are unpredictable and
unavoidable.
As the parcel is already developed and privately
owned, there will be no significant loss of open space
~ar-a~o. the water for the general public.
~escription of MitiMation Measures to Minimize Adverse Effect:~
The planned adherence to regulatory restructions on
all levels will mitigate the impact of the project.
The rainwater runoff control system will mitigate
the effects of runoff from the paved area and terminal
building.
-16-
The architectural design of the terminal building
and the landscaping will improve esthetic and visual
qualities of the site.
Improved efficiency with respect to passenger check-
in and vehicle traffic control will relieve congestion
n the local roads.
The improved wastewater disposal system will decrease
groundwater contamination.
Identification of Any Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources
The usage of fossil fuels to power construction
equipment and workers vehicles is irreversible, as is
the consumption of electrical power by tools.
/'D_gscriotion of Any Growth-~nducing Aspects of the Action
The proposed action will have no growth effects
upon local area.
Impact of the Action on the Use and Conservation of Energy
During the construction phase, energy in the
of fossil fuels and electricity will be consumed.
completion, the terminal building will be heated by
modern, efficient equipment, and will be adequately
insulated to minimize energy consumption.
forth
Upon
-17-
Description and Evaluation of Reasonable Alternatives
To Achieve the Same or Similar Ob,~ectives
The only reasonable alternative is to continue
operation of the ferry terminal under existing conditions.
While ridership and capacity would be little affected, if
at all, this alternative would result in continued incon-
venience to passengers in the form of inadequate lounge,
waiting room, snack bar and sanitary facilities. Congestion
on local roads by vehicles waitin~ to enter the staging
area would continual ~nd ferry company management would
be denied the opportunity to initiate needed operational
and administrative improvements and efficiencies.
-18-
Studies, Reports and Literature Used in Preparation of DEIS
Austin, G. L. Jr., 1961. Water and Marsh Birds of the
World.
Butt, William H. et.al., 1964. A Field Guide to the
Mammals, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Miner, R. W., 1950. Field Book of Seashore Life, G. P.
Putnam's Sons, New York.
Nassau and Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1979.
Water Study, Hauppauge, New York.
"208"
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Suffolk County, Riverhead, New York.
New York State Department of Transportation, 1981.
of Findings, Long Island Sound Ferry Service
merit Study.
1975. Soil Survey of
Summary
Improve-
New York State Department of Transportation, 1981. Executive
Summary and Recommendations, Long Island Sound Ferry
- -~Service. Improvement Study.
Long Island Lighting Co., 1983. Population Survey: Current
Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
-19-
EAF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine,
in an orderly manner, whether a project or action is likely to be sig-
nificant. The question of whether an action is significant is not al-
ways easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that
are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who
will need to determine significance will range from those with little
or no formal knowledge of the environment to those who are technically
expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge
in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affect-
ing the question of significance.
The EAF is intended to provide a method whereby the preparer can
be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehen-
sive in nature, and yet flexible to allow the introduction of informa-
tion to fit a project or action.
EAF CO}~ONENTS: The 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
This phase of the evaluation 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 identi-
fies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3:
Only 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 to the municipality in which
the project is located.
Determination of Si~nificance
If you find that one (or more) impact is both large and its con-
sequence is important, then the project is likely to be significant,
and a draft environmental impact statement should be prepared.
Scoping
If a draft EIS is needed, the Environmental Assessment Form will
be a valuable tool in determining the scope of the issues to be covered
by the draft EIS.
14-16-2 (12/78)
APPENDIX A
EAF
ENVJRO;IHENTAL ASSESSMENT ~ PART I
Pr~ect infon~tion
NOTICE: This ~Ocumant is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these questions will be considered
as Dart of the aPplication for approval and n~y be subject to further verification and public review. Provide
any additional infor~tion you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3.
it is expectea that comoletion of the EAF will be dependent on information current)y avaiTable and will not
involve new studies, research or invesciqation. If information requirino such additional work is unaval~ble.
SO indicate and s~ectfy each instance.
NAME OF PROdECT:
, , Improvements to Orient-Ferry
Terminal Facilities
_Apo~Ess AND NAHE OF APPLICANT:
Eh-Consultants Inc.
64 North Main Street
(StrEet)
Southampton~ N.Y,, 11968
(P.O.)
(state) (zip)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different)
Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc.
( Name )
Box 33
{Street)
New London, Connecticut
l'P'. 0.9 (State)
BUS~NCSS PHONE: 323~2415
06320
(Zip) -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT? (Brief)y describe type of Project 'or action) Construct upland ferry
terminal facilities on the site of exiat~ terminal vehicle staging
~ consist of aterminal buil_~_~, paved vehicle (PLEAT[ COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indlcat~ N.A, if not app)tcab]e}
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeve)'ooed areas)
1. General character of the land: ~Generally uniform slope ~ Generally uneven and roll(no or irregular
g, Present land use: Urban Industrial
, Agriculture ' t-~e; .__ , Coa~ercial X Suburban ., Rural , Forest
Total acreage of broJect aria: 2.2acres,
Aoproximate acreage: Presently After Completion ~resently After Comp)et(on
~eadow or Brushland ~2 acres .~__~_acres Hater Surface Area acres
A~ricu)tural - acres ~acres earth or fill) 1 acres .7 acres
Uetland (Freshwater or Roads, buildtnqs '
24, 2~ or F.C.L.) ~acres _ acres . (Landscaping) ~ -
Other (indicate Cyne~ __ acres ,:3 acres
4. '(hat is -redominant soil type(s) on nroject site? Sand
Y.s X No
(,n ceet)
Approxir~te percentage of proposed oroject site with slooes: O-10T 92 ',: 1A-I~ ~ %; 1St: or
greater %.
Is project contiguous to, or contain a buildino or site listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? Yes X No
8. What is the depth to the water table? 6,5 feet (&t test hole)
9. Do hunting or Fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes NO
lO. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered - Yes X No, according to - Identify each species
11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological
formations - Yes X NO. (Describe
Es the project site presently used by the coranunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation
13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community?
Yes X No
14. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. ~Name of stream and name of river to which tt is tributary
15.
16.
B.
Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. ~(ame Gardtners Ba7 ; b. Size (in acres) N/A
What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g.
single family residential, R~2) and the scale of develooment (e.g. 2 story).
BI Bumtuess
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 2o2 acres.
b. Project acreage develooed: ~ acres initially; ~ acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 1.2+ .
d. Length of project, in miles: ~/A (if appropriate)
e. If proiect is an expansion of existing_indicate percent of expansion proposed:
age 1700+ ; developed acreage N/A
f. NunVoer of off-strut oarking spaces existino 156~F .; proposed 156-1-
NO change ~ro~ext~ttng
g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour .(upon COmpletion of project)
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
~ne Family' Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initial
Ultimate
If:
i Orientation
"eighborhood-City-Regiona) Estimated Emoioyment
Co~ercial re,tonal 5+
j. Total heiqnt o¢ tallest ~ronosed structure __~ feet.
building square foot-
2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site -
9.
lO.
Il.
12.
13,
0 tons
cubic yards.
How many acres of Veqetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) wi)) be far, dyed fro~ site - 0 acres
Will any mature forest (over 190 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by tn~s
prolect~ . Yes X No
Are tbern any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? X Yes
If single phase project: Anticipated period pf construction ~ months, (includin9 demolition)
~f multi-phased project: a. Total number of phases antic(pared No.
b. Anticipated date of cor~nencement phase i month year {including
den~ol i rich)
c. Approximate completion date final phase ~onth .__,yea?,
d. Is phase I financia]]y dependent on subseouent phases? Yes NO
twill blasting occur during construction? Yes X No
Number of jobs generated: during construction l_:~ ; after project is complete
Number of jobs eliminated by this project
Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ~ Yes NO. If yes, exblain:
Prement ferry terminal will be relocated to new buildin~.
a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No:
b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Sewage
c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged
Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or
decreased by proposal? Yes X No.
Is project or an), portion of project located in the lO0 year flood plain?
X Yes No
a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes ~ No
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No
c. If yes, give name: : location
d. dill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes
16. Will Prnlect use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No
17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No
lB. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes ~ No
lg. ~ill project result in an increase in energy use? Yes X No. If yes, indicate type!s)
No
20. If water supply is from wells indicate oumoing capacity 15.6 gals/minute.
2l. Total anticipated water usage per day _~._2~L500 gals/day. (max)
22 Zoning: a. Uhat is dominant zoning classification of site? Bl-b~at~eaa
b. Current specific zoning classification of site
d. If no, indicate desired zon~nq
Yes
a. Is any Federal )reouired? Yes X No
b. Does oroject involve State or Federal funding or financing?
c. Local and Regional aoprovals:
Approval Requi red
(Yes, No) (Tyoe)
Submittal Approval
(Date) (Oate)
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
Cfty, Town, Zoning Board
City, County Health Oeoartment
Other loca) agencies
Other regional agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
C. INFORI(ATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional info~mation as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any
adverse impacts associated with theJ~ro~osal, please discuss such in, acts and the ~easures which can be
taken to mitigate or avoid them. //// ~.~
,REPA~R S SI~ATURE:
REPRESENTING: 0ro88 Sound FerrM
~AT~: May 29, 1984
EAF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II
Project Impacts and Their Magnitude
General Information (Read Carefu))y)
- In completing the fon'n the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations
been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
- Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessanily
significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an
effect in co)u mn 2 simply asks that it be looked at further.
o The ~ provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the thresnnlJ
of mag~ that would trigger a response in co)u mn 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the
State and for mast situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds
may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating.
- Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance.
They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each auestion
- The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
INSTRUCTIONS (Rend Carefully)
a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. An'~wer Ye~s if there will be ~ny effect.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Ye~s answers.
c. If answering Yes to a auestton then check the appropriate box {column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential
size of the imbect. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any exile provided, check column 2. If
impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1.
d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the impact ~hen consider the imnact as ~oo~entially large and
proceed to PART 3.
e. If a Ootenttally large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large
magnitude, place a Yes in colu~nn 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible.
1, 2.. $.
IMPACT ON LAND
HO YES
Examples that Would Apply to Column ~
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, {15 foot rise per
100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project
area exceed )0%.
Construction on Land where the depth to the water table is )ess
than 3 feet.
~ithin 3 feet of existing ground surface.
SMALL TO POTENTIAl CAN IMPACT BE
HOOERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE
1. WILL THERE 8E AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO
PROJECT SITE?
-- Construction in a desiqnated floodway.
Other impacts:
N~ YES
WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE QR UNUSUAL LAND FAPJ4S A~
FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunea, aeoloqtcal forma-
t$4~$, eec,)
Snectftc land forms:
~PACT ON WATER
hq) YES
WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BOOY DE$1~NATEO AS .......... ~ ~
PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15. 24, 2S of the Envtr- [ X)
Examples that Would Aop)y to Col uem 2
Drodgind more than lO0 cubic yards of material from
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidll wetland.
Other impacts:
BODY OF ¥1ATER? ............................................ /~% ,~.~
Other t~acts:
NO YES
~ILL PROJECT AFPECT SURFACE OR GROUNO.ATER n ~LIT¥? ~ ~
Examples that Hould Apply to Co)umn 2
Project wtll roqutre a discharge Remit.
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have
aporoval to serve proposed project.
Project requires water suoply From wells with ~eater
than 45 qallons per minute ~umptng capacity.
ConStruction Or ooeration causinq any contamination
of a oubllc water suo~ly system.
Project will adversely affect 9rOunCwatae.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to
facilities which oresently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity.
~roJact requtrtn~ a facility that would Ule water in
~i~ALL TQ P(1TENTIAL CAN i~IPACT BE
~OERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
I)tPACT ~[MPACT PROJECT CHANGI
)
patterns but
/ 7.
~UNOFF? ...............................................
will be picked up by on-site drainage.
~ YFS
~*ILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ...........................
Other tmoacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ~diIPAI q
WiLL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENEO OR ENOANRERED SPECIES?
Examples that Would Aooly to Column 2
Reduction of one or more s~)ecie$ listed on the ~ew York
or Federal list, Using the site, over or near site or
Found on the site.
Removal of any oortion of a critical or sionificant wild-
life fl~b~ ~t..
Aoniication of Pesticide or herbicide over more than
YES
)(ILL PROJECT SUBSTAUTIALLY AFFECT UDN-THREATE:IED OR NO YES
ENDANGERED SPECIES?
...................................... 6)0
S~LL TO PATENTIAL CAN iI1PRCT BE
~OERATE LARGE REDUCE3 0¥
I
I,i,'nACT 0¢ '.ISL'~L ~ESQt~RCE
Other impacts:
IMPACT OR HI~TORIC RESOURCJJ
WILL PROJECT IHPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OR HISTORIC,
PRE-UISTAmlC AR PALEONTOmICAL II'POPTANCE? ................
Examoles that Would Aoolv to Column 2
Pr~iect occurtno wholly or martially within or contiouous
to any factlttv or site listed on the National Renis~er of
historic ~laces.
Any impact to an archeological s~te or fossil bed located
within the project site.
Other impacts:
NO
[~PACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
WILL THE PRnJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR OUALITY OF EXISTING NO
OR FUTURE OPEll SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~IITIES? ...... ~
Examples that Would Aoplv to Column 2
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oeoortunity,
A major reduction of an open space important to the co~munity~
Other imoacts:
J~ACT AN T~L~NSPORTATI~N
!'ILL THERE BE A~ EFPECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEUS?
Examp)es that Would An~Jy to Column 2
and/or goods.
NO
1. 2..
)
YE¢
YES
YES
YES
* Present transportation systems will be maintained
but in a more efficient manner.
!MPACT ON NOISE
~ILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE O00RS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION
NO YES
or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....
Examples that ,,ould Aooly to CoIu~ 2
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other
sensitive frei) it¥.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Pro)ect will oroduce ooerating noise exceedino the
local ambient noise levels for noise o'J{side of structures.
Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
SMALL TO PQTENTIAL CAi4 IHPACT CE-
iODERATI LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT I'iPACT PROJECT CHANGE
S
)
NO YES
'(30
,~10
JHPACT OH HEALTH & HA~AR05
16 'JILL P ' ~'
RO,JE~, AFFECT PUBLIC IIEALTH AND SAFETY? ...........
Exampias that Nould Apply to Column 2
__ Pro)eot wil) cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances k.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)
~n the event of accident or uoset conditions, or there will
he ~ C~ron!c )O~ level discharge or emission.
__ PrnleCt that will result in the burial of "hazardnus wastes"
(~.e. toxic, pnisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating,
infectious, etc., inclu~inq wastes that are solid, semi-solid,
liquid or contain qases.)
~oraoe Cac~ltti~s f~r one mil)ion nr more qallnns of liouified
r,~tural g~s or other liouids.
"®0
WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTE~ nF THE E~ISTIUG ' UO YES
CO~tUN1TY? ............................................
Example that Would Apply to Column 2
The population of the City, Town Or Village in which the
project is located is )ikely to grow by more than 5% of
resident human population.
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or onera-
ting services will increase by ~re than 5~ per year as a
result of this project.
Will involve any ~ermanent facility of a non-aqricultural
use in an agricultural district Or ten. ye nrime agricultural
lands lmm cultivation.
Development will induce an influx of a particular age
NO YE!
t8. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PRQ,)ECT? .....
Either government o6 citizens of adjacent con~nunities
have expressed o~positlon or rejected the project or have
not been contacted,
Obiections to the nroiect from within the co~m~Jnitv.
JIF ANY ACTION IR PART ~ IS IDENTIFIED AS A i
PqTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANHOT DETERMINE
I
THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PBOCEED TO PART 3.
PORTIONS OF EAF CDHPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT:
OETEPMINATIOR PART I X PART Ii ~ PART 3__
Ugon review of the inforqnetion recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2
and 3) and considerinq both the maanitude and tmnortance of each
in~)act, it is reasonably determined that:
A. The project will result in no major imoacts and. thereFnre.
is one which may not cause significant damaae to th~ environment,
Althouoh the project could have a significant effect on the
Roy L. Haje, Prbs~dent, Erl~Consultants Inc.
~ignature of Prenarer (if dif./.r~-'~ from rJ~snon$ibl~er}
PREPARE A NEB~TlVE aECLA~ATIOII
P~EPAR[ POSITIVE DECLA~TIOq PROCEED WITU EIS
~-.q-n~r-~-~f- qosPonsible (lfri~ial in Lead
~gencv
EAF
ENVIROI(MENTAL ASSESS~IENT - PART III
EVALUATION OF THE IHPQRTANCE OF IMPACTS
II~STRUCTIONS
Complete the fo)lowing for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 Of Part 2:
). Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe {if apolicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than )~roe impact by a pro-
ject change. -
3. Based on the information available, deci~e if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important
to the minicipality (city, town or village) in ~vhich the project is located. - --
To answer the question of importance, consider:
The probability of the impact or effect occurring
The duration of the impact or effect
Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values
~(hether the impact or effect can be controlled
The regional consequence of the impact or effect
Its potential divergence from local needs and goals
Whether known objections to the project apoly to this impact or effect.
DETEPJ~INATIQN OF SIG[!IFICAflCE
An action is considered to be significant if: ~
One (or more) imoact is determined to both lame and its (their) conseouence, based on the review
above, is important.
PAPT II1 STATEMENTS
(Continue on Attachments, as needed)
"-~ ~--S~N% S~=ny ~r==k,~y=~ 11790-2356
[5!5) 444-0365
F~X (51~) 444-0373
~ Yc'~ =ecent request to ex~_~nd ~.he a~cve permit has
~avie.~-ed pursuant =o 6~%VZ~"~, Pa_--t 62!. The ex~ation data is
ex~-~.ded to --
Your recant r~_ques= to mcdify t-he above
ravie,~ed Du--$uant to 61~/.~_R, pa_--~. 621.
~e ~=~a= ac==cr~ or ~e ~is~ng p~!t ccn~ticns.
Al! o'~
pm.--mit.
and conditions =~=,,-~ as w=-i=tan in t~.e o=£~inal
Ve~! ~a!y ycums,
Depu=7 Regicna'! Pm--mit Adminis~ator
~8- 01027/00002-0
'~'qOGRAJ4 N~I48£R C S )
PERMIT
Febr~mry 22f 1995
EXPIRATIC TEES)
F~r~er'f 28, 1997
Under ~ Envir~L
Cenaar~mt i~ LaM
TYPE OF PEPJdLT · lieu O Re~L 0 Nodification [3 Permit to Con~truct 13 Pemit to brat, I
icLe 15, Title 5: Protection O 6aYCaR 608: ktitmr hLIty C] Article 27, Title 7; OMYC~R ~3~0:
0 Article Z~, Title 27: NIned Land
Article 15, Title 27: Wild, 0 Articles 1, ~3, 17, 19, 27, $7;
Other:
PEPJdlT ISSUED TO
Cro~s Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
TELEPHONE NUI4BER
C203)
CONTACT PERSCg4 FOR PERNITTED IdC)RK
Richard NICHUrrly
#AHE AND ADDRESS OF PROdECT/FACILITY
Orient Ferry Fl¢tLtty
Hain Road
LOCATION O~ PROdECT/FACILITY
ITELEPflONE NIJ4BER
C203) ~43-739/,
I '~ I WATERCOURSE #YIN CO(~{DIIL~TES
suffolk southotd Gmrdtners Bay
Replace existing #stem rmv) with · 2&' x 35' rlllyp, tnltaLL 2 Cereal) three pile dotl=hin8 and three tmloerary ~0 pile
dolphins (oak ~nd steel) et Kestern ramp in accordance uith Crom~ Smmd Ferry Service~ Inc plan dated Z/08/95.
DEPUTY EEGIOIL{tL ~RMIT AD#INISTI~t'
TOR:
Charles T. Hamilton
~DDRESS
Bldg. 40, SUgY, RocI 219, stgrly Brook, MY 1179Q-2356
The ~ermitted site or j~;ility, including relevant r.~rds, is subiect to in-
~p'~c;ion at reasonable,~rs and intervals by an aut]~l"ized representative of
t',~e Depari~unt of Envir~.untal ~ervatio~ (the Deperl~nt) to determine
wJ~ether the permittee is c~plying with this permit and the Fc~. ~ch represen-
tat ive tray order the v~rk suspended pursuant to R-~ 71-0301 and SAPA 401(3). ~
c~¢~/ of this permit, including all referenced rral~, drivings and special
conditions, must be available for inspection by the Deper~'~unt at all tirras at
the project site. Failure to produce a c~¢y of the permit upon request by
Deparb~,nt representative is a violation of this permit.
Permit ~ ~ Rane~ls
2. The Deperb~'~nt reserves the right to rrodify, suspend or revoke this permit when
a) the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any
condition of the permit or provisions of the I=C]_ and pertinent regula-
tions is found;
b) the permit ~es obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
relevant facts;
c) ne~vrraterial info.~tion is discovered; or
d) envirc,.ental conditions, relevant technology, or applicable lan or
regulation have rmterial ly changed since the permit wes issued.
The permittee n'ust sul~nit a separate written application to the Deparbl~nt for
renewal, rrcxJification or transfer of this permit. Such appl ication trust include
any forrrs, fees or supplemental info[.ation the Depart~'~'ent requires. ~y
rene~l, rr~clification or transfer granted by the Departrrant must be inwriting.
The permittee trust sub'nit a faneuil application at least:
a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (Si=[~ES), Hazardous ~ste Management Facilities
(PI~/F), rrajor Air Pollution Control (Al=C) and ~:~lid W~ste IVl~nag~nt
Facilities (~V~/F); and
b) ~0 days before ex, pi ration of all other permit t~pes.
Lhless expressly provided for by the Depera,~nt, issuance of this permit does
not rrodify, supersede or rescind any order or determination perviously issued by
the Deper~l~nt or any of the te,,,~, conditions or require~-ents c~tained in such
order or determination.
Other
6.
Legal 0ol igations of I~ritta
The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the
full legal responsibility for all d,=.=gee, direct or indirect, of v~atever
nature and by ~ver suffered, arising out of the project described in this
permit and has agreed to indu...ify and save harmless the State fra~ suits,
actions, d,~,uges and costs of every r~[~ and description resulting from thi.~
project.
This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass up~ th~
lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the
permitted ~rk nor does it authorize the irrpai,.~nt of am/ rights, title, or
interest in real or personal prooerty helcl or vested in a person not a party to
the permi t.
8. The permittee is respe~sible for obtainiP~cj am/ other permits, al:~rovals, lands,
easu~un~s arx: ri[;hts-of-v~y that ~'~'ay be required for this project.
Pa~e 2 of ~,
-'TIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ART~ES IS (Title S), 24, 2S. 34 and ~ N¥CRR Part 60R~.~ Tidal Wetland )
of any wetland or ~vater~lv by suspended ~oiids, sediments, tuels, Services Inc. , by R. i~cMurr~ 2/18/95
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Any debris or excess material from construction of this
project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area
(upland) and removed to an approved upland area for
disposal. No debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or
protected buffer areas.
Supplementary Special Conditions (A) through (F) attached
1-4738-01027/00002-0
~ Page 3 of 4
New York State Depa~ment ~-nvironmental Conservation
· , Bu,lding 40~SUN% Stony Brook..~v York 11790-2356
Telephone (516) 444-0365
, . Facsimile (516) 444-0373
February 23, 1995
Langdon Marsh
Commissioner
Cross Sound Ferry Services,
P.O. Box 33
New London, CT 06320
Inc.
RE: 1-4738-01027/00002-0
Dear Permittee:
In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform
Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL).and its impl.e~.enting regulations
(6N~...C~R., Part 6~l!.we are enclosing your permit. Please read all
conal=~ons carezully. If you are unable to comply with any
conditions, please contact us at the above address.
Also enclosed is a permit sign which is to be conspicuously
posted at the project site and protected from the weather.
Very truly yours,
Charles T. Hamilton
Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
CTH:cg
enclosure
140
report, was accepted, dud the npplicatio, was i,e. fe. rre, d to
the Comptroller for appraisal and rcporL
,lames 8milh dud W. 8. 8mith, tacit applied to pur-
chase certain boa, MorlgaKe La.eds i. Westebester
County, offering to {my t!merefor as follows: James 8midt
$1,o00.o0, and W. 8. Smith
Time following report was submitted in said applications
dms~r Oatnty, ~x. el'M by ~a~ Mor~a~ R~ 957 and
whid~ w~re fo~do~ and fl~o h~ds hid in fro' fl~e 8ta~ at
~le in ~p~mbor, 188K a~ a rest of $1~7.~.
Friadpal ................ $500 ~ $500 0a $1,~
In~t ................ I~0 00 120 ~ ~0 00
~is .................... 98 ~ 98 6g lO~
${18 62 $718 03 $1,4117
Appraised at $1,000.00.
The ~iglnul mortgages are inclosed l, nrowifl~.
Yom's re~l~_~t futly,
OAL¥11q' J. HUSOlq,
Offhand-, said report was accepted ann Ihe app}iea-
Lions were referred to the 0omptroller for appraisal and
report..
David Weloh apl)lied for a gra~mt of lands ueder tho
waters of (]a.n]iner's bay, in the town of 8outhold, 8uf-
tolk county, for parposes of commerce.
is made in accordance with tho provisions or the statutes
· in
relating there~; aaa al~. that it ~ made
ral~ and regulations of ~ho O~mi~io~e= o~
thai. ]m ha~ examiuea
opinion Um~ C~ making of Lite g~t will nokxn~f~
On motion of the
U n -meat of rift), dollt. ~at le~m-lmt~t
Abs~ro~n Bmthe~
STATE OF NEW YORK:
~ou o( A~ndmth B~thom for
the Comlnhs~em of tim
.oti~ do~ not ~etain
standings are ~, forth upon the ,nap,
app]i~tio,,, and verifiud by the affidlvlt M tl~ Surveyor.
Fcahern~re, flare
eation~., the snt~rv~r or
It apl,tars, however, that tho supei','~or and town
4?4 0011
F.~.~ TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
TO:
O~AHzZATIo~
~RO19I:
,, o¢¢zc~ .... (,5,'~8) Qq~
NI,ID~F_t~ OF' PA6-----------------ES TRA~S/,Lr'n'ED
(I. NCLUDIN6 Ti-IlS PA6E)
M~Y-24-1996
.8 49~ 0011