HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-15.-9-10.1, 11.1... (4)
.'
.
This application was withdrawn by applicant as per October 22, 1999.
See new file for details.
r
.-:
o
"
-
?-
zl-
o~
o
U.1
I-
<
U
o
-l
<I;:;
~U.1
ou..
It.U.1
V')~
-<
.-:;:,
<0
,.J'"
ll.
::J
l-<
-
11",
V')
-
:r: %
l-< _
~..-
1."t1 'f7iN "'-.
f~;i~. "
\. - ,I" /......
...\
Lead Agency Coordination
5EQRA determination
DEis ~e.Q.. lv\'-<I>>\plU<-- 11-2..'-1-'11
REFERRED TO:
~ing Board of APpe~ls
(written comments within 60 days of request)
/Board of ~rustees
i/'Di- L .
./Building Department (certification)
. Suffolk County Department of Planning
vDepartment of Transportation -State
Department of Transportation - County
jSUffOlk County Dept. of Health
Fire Commissioners
.
..
\
(
SITE PLAN
Presubmission conference
(within 30 days of written request)
Complete appjication received
(within <1 months of presub. conference)
Application reviewed at work session
(within 10 days of receipt)
Applicant advised of necessary revisions.
(within 30 days of review)
: ~evised sub mission received
I
o
o
o
-
RECEIVED:
Draft Covenants and Restrictions
Filed Covenants and Restrictions
/ yndscape plan
viighting plan
ICurb Cut approval
,
-, )Iealth approval
j Drainage plan
,;Reviewed by Engineer
Ap proval of site plan.
-"'ith conditions
Endo"sement of site'plan
. -,
", ......-.......
Certificate of Occupancy inspection
One y'~ar review
-
(
fr")
/'7 9' (;
.
fiW'lIr.:=l
~~
[;'j~
fiW'lIr.::l
~~
fiW'lIfQKl
~~
I$el~
/:::!@
~
~~~
fiW'lIr.::l
~~
fi7.ii1lr.::l
~~
pt:O'tJr.::l
~~
Sent:
Received'
pt:O'tJr.:=l
~~
pt:O'tJr;;;;,
~~
fi7.ii1lr;;;;,
~~
pt:O'tJr;;;;,
~~
/ACimr;;;-r
~~
pt:O'tJr.::l
~~'
flWTlr;jj(
~~
pt:O'tJr;:
~~
[NXlLl r-
'w_ 'n~
I
.
.
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
WILL~J.CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
_-7"~
~~'bllfFOl.t ~
~l!'\;... . \\
. ~ . ;.,,~
~'Z> ... ~/:;
.",,~ ~'.()'
~Q,f .&. '1.~~..j.-{J
-:0-. 'X' ~cc~
.~
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1r38
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
RICHARD G. WARD
Chairman
Date Received
Date Completed
Filing Fee
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
APPUCATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PlAN
_New
_Change of Use
_Re-use
_Extension
_ Revision of Approved Site Plan
Submitted, without prejudice, pursuant to the direction of
Hon. Patrick Henry, Supreme Court, Suffolk County,
reserving all rights and claims to all pre-existing legal,
conforming and/or non-conforming uses.
Name of BUSiness or Site:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Location:
EJS State Route 25 at Orient Point
Address:
Main Road (Rt. 25), Orient, NY
Name of Applicant:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Address of Appilcant:
2 Ferry St., P.O. Box 33, New London, CT 06320-0033
Telephone:
(c/o Esseks, Hefter & Angel) (516) 369.1700
Owner of Land:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski
Agent or Person responsible
for appilcation: William W. Esseks
Address:
Clo Esseks, Hefter & Angel, 108 East Main St., Riverhead, NY
Telephone:
(516) 369.1700
Site plans prepared by:
.John .J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C.
License No.:
P.E. No. 53385. L.S. No. 49318
Address:
P.O. Box 720, Water Mill, NY 11976
Telephone:
(5161726.7600
-~-
-~~- .~---------- ------.---
,"
,
,
.
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
william w. Esseks, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
he resides at c/o 108 East Main Street, Riverhead in the State of
New York and that he represents the owner of the above property
and that he is the attorney for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
which is hereby making application; that there are no existing
structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the
site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, including all
rights-of-way, has been clearly established and is shown on said
Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan
which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads;
that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the
Planning Board for the filing of site Plans and will comply with
same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered
or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning
Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be
installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted.
Signed
(Attorney for owner)
h^f^--Vc ~
Sworn to me this 11th day of
April, 1996
//
?1'a 'lOA
1 ~
'\
I ,
!' / //
if /( A {{':JI<!.....
KAREN M. IJHlINGER
NOTARY PUBLIC, STlTE CF r:EW YORK
NO. 405n~25 . SUFFOLK COUfJTY
COMMISSION EXPlP.fS FEB. 28, 1910 ~
(
.
It
Pace 3
Plannlne Board Site Plan Application
3.943 Ac. Total Land Area of Site (acres or square feet)
W II & R.80Zoning District
Existing Use of Site Snack Bar and Parking
Proposed Use of Site Snack Bar and Parking
Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(sl
Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s)
Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s)
Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable)
Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where applicabie)
Has applicant been granted a variance and/or ~ecial exception by
No Board of Appeals - Case # & date
No Board of Trustees - Case # & date
No NY State Department of Environmental Conservation - Case # & date
No Suffolk County Department Health Services - Case # & date
"
" . to be determined on
completion of further
mapping
"
"
"
"
N/A Case Number
Name of Applicant
Date of Decision
Expiration Date
Other
No Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be
stored or handled at the site?
If so, have proper permits been obtained?
Name of issuing agency
Number and date of permit
NO ACTION (EXCA VA TION OR CONSTRUCTION) MA Y BE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN BY
PLANNING BOARD. VIOLA TORS ARE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION
r'
.
.
.
Preliminary
Site Plan Study
for
Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc.
Situate
Orient
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, N.Y.
elf
April, 1996
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C.
.
.
Cron Sound Femr
Introduction
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. operates a ferry service for the
transportation of passengers, vehicles and freight across Long Island Sound
between Orient Point, New York, and New London, Connecticut. Terminal
operations are maintained both at Orient Point and at New London, and consist
of vessel mooring facilities and loading ramps, vehicle queuing and parking
areas, ferry office, waiting room, snack bar and restroom facilities.
Cross Sound wishes to enhance its parking facilities at the Orient Point
terminal, and intends to devote an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel (hereafter termed the
"East Parcel") for additional parking. Cross Sound has retained the services of
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. to assist in the preparation and filing of
applications and supporting documents for regulatory approvals which may be
required for the enhanced parking.
This preliminary report is intended to initiate the site plan review process
with the Town of Southold by providing certain preliminary information, describing
an ongoing site plan development effort, and posing certain questions for the
Planning Board which, when answered, will facilitate the completion of a properly
detailed site plan.
Exlstina Use
Cross Sound currently owns land east of the easterly end of State Route
25, which land currently supports a building housing a snack bar and an unpaved
parking area which represents a portion of the company-provided parking for
ferry patrons. That property is termed "Snack Bar Parcel" in this report, and it
consists of 1.4449 acres as computed from the deed description. It is in the WII
zoning district.
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 2
.
.
Cross Sound Ferrv
tl -.f ..
i ~!,!;;" !<:~.
}!:,'.:"
'(<
,'fl(
t,,:, ~~
'3"" ,,<
~<!
:"-;'.'
':1,1)
~;
View facing westerly across parking on Snack Bar Parcel toward Terminal Building, with Snack Bar
building visible at left.
Pro Dosed Addition
East of the Snack Bar Parcel is property owned by Adam C. Wronowski,
individually and as custodian for Jessica Wronowski, which currently is zoned
R-80. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., can acquire the Wronowski property,
termed in this report the "East Parcel", and provide additional parking spaces.
For purposes of preparation of a site plan, it is assumed that these two parcels
will be treated as a single lot.
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 3
.
.
Cross Sound FelTY
View facing westerly across East Parcel toward Snack Bar, showing vacant area with existing parking in
background.
Prellmlnarv Site Plan
During the fall of 1995, Dunn Engineering Associates studied the subject
properties and others for the purpose of recommending methods of increasing
the amount and efficiency of parking for ferry patrons. Using information from
reference materials published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Dunn
Engineering recommended that a parking geometry be developed using a
parking stall width of 8.5 feet, a stall depth of 17.5 feet and an aisle width of 26
feet, and estimated that approximately 500 parking stalls conforming to such
dimensions could be delineated on the four parcels (West Parcel, Terminal
Parcel, Snack Bar Parcel and East Parcel).
A preliminary site plan based on the Dunn Engineering approach was
prepared, in a schematic fashion, in November of 1995, by John J. Raynor, P.E.
& L.S., P.C. That site plan must be considered preliminary and schematic in
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 4
Cross Sound Ferrv
.
.
nature because it was based on generalized site conditions which are insufficient
to permit a more precise determination of areas for necessary site improvement
elements such as areas for drainage recharge, for transitional buffering along
property lines and along the interface with the Gardiners Bay shoreline, and for
circulation and interchange with adjacent roads and drives.
For purposes of this initial submission, a drawing entitled "Composite Map
of properties of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc." is employed as a preliminary
site plan. While recognizing that the Town Code will require that further
development of the site plan be presented at a scale of 1"=20', we have provided
this preliminary plan at 1"=40' for convenience of viewing at this stage of our
discussion. That plan depicts the basic parking configuration resulting from the
Dunn Engineering recommendations, characterized by a series of parallel aisles
running essentially north and south, with several potential locations for access
from that portion of State Route 25 that separates the Snack Bar Parcel from the
Terminal Parcel. Superimposed on that basic design are preliminary
representations of setbacks to be observed in adjusting the parking layout;
indeed, one of the most important aspects of the preliminary site plan discussion
will be to agree upon the setback dimensions to be used.
Drainage design computations and general configuration are not included
at this stage, but will be incorporated in the more detailed drawings to come. It is
our intention to propose a drainage design which uses manufactured subsurface
leaching structures such as Infiltrator™ units or Contactor™ units to provide
storage volume for stormwater while still using a permeable parking surface
chiefly composed of compact gravel.
Documents under Preoaration
The Town Code requires that a final site plan depict specific kinds of
existing conditions, both on the subject site and on neighboring properties within
specified distances. Acquisition of such data on property not controlled by the
applicant using conventional ground survey methods is usually problematic.
Therefore, we are currently in the process of producing equivalent base mapping
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 5
Croa Sound Femr
.
.
using aerial photogrammetric methods. To ensure that the mapping is as current
as possible, we have elected to base it upon new aerial stereopair photography,
flown especially for this project. Production of such aerial photography is
necessarily dependent on weather and natural light conditions and the existence
of snow cover; it is not uncommon for orders for such photography to be delayed
pending a simultaneous occurrence of acceptable qualities in each area of
concern. In this case, photographs ordered some time ago could not be flown
until late March. The photographs have been analyzed by a photogrammetrist to
identify points for ground control by conventional plane surveying methods.
Acquisition of that ground control data is scheduled shortly. Thereafter, the
photogrammetrist will use that data to calibrate an analytical stereo plotter, and
proceed to generate a topographic base map for the project and adjoining
parcels. The resulting detailed map of existing conditions, together with a digital
terrain model of the site, should be available sometime in May.
Aerial view of site taken in late March, showing some of the ground
control points to be located by conventional survey methods..
John J. Raynor, P.E. " L.S., P.C. 6
.
.
Cross Sound Fern
Issues for Prellminarv Site Plan Review
During review of the preliminary site plan, several issues can and should
be addressed if the subsequent detailed plans are to be developed efficiently.
Those issues include, but may not be limited to:
.
What setbacks are to be observed from the various bounding
property lines or natural feature lines?
.
What landscaping treatment is to be employed in the setback areas
to provide transitional buffering of neighboring properties?
.
Will the Town recognize and adopt the recommendations based on
Institute of Transportation Engineers research presented by Dunn
Engineering, and authorize this special case use of adjusted
dimensions for parking stalls and aisles? If such recommendations
are accepted, should they be employed for existing parking on the
West Parcel?
.
Will the Town entertain a drainage design for permeable surface
parking that employs Infiltrator™ or Contactor™ units?
.
What level of parking area lighting should be employed to afford
safe access to parking and how should that need be balanced with
the probable desire to minimize perception of such lighting beyond
the site perimeter?
Which of the multiple opportunities for access between State Route
25 and the consolidated Snack Bar/East Parcel should be
developed further in the more detailed site plan to come?
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 7
Cr_ Sound Ferrv
.
.
." . .'.
Enclosures
1) Town of Southold Application for Consideration of a Site Plan.
2) Application Fee of $600, based on 4 acres (3.944) of site at the rate
of $150. per acre. No new building is proposed.
3) Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) prepared originally
in connection with applications to the Town of Southold Zoning
Board of Appeals, which applications are being resubmitted
concurrently with this site plan application.
4) Preliminary Site Plan dated April 8, 1996.
John J. Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C. 8
",--'-
SEP- 9-96 MDN 1B:18
P.04
.
PART i-pROJECT INFORMATION
. ' Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whe;her the action propo,ed mav have a Slgnlr.cant ~ii,
on the environment. Please ~Qmplete the entire form, Parts A through E, Answers to the,e Questions will be consider
as part of the application for approval and may be subjec;t to further 'erific;a~ion and public; review, Provide any addltio,
information yo,", believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3, .
It is expected that completion of the lull EAF will be depe"dent on information currently available and will not invol
new studies. r.search or inveslisation, If i"formation requirinli such acdltlol,al wor~,!S una'/ailah/e. so indica:e and spec;
each instance, . .
I NAM. OF ACTION
E~~ansion of off-street carkin2 facilities at ex~s"~ng ferry serminab
LOCATION OF .AC':"ION (Includ. Slr..t Adc:lrall.l!, M'uflIClgallt)' InCl CcUrH")
S/S Main Roac1 \ \Jest of terminal) and 1':1 S Main ~,oa:.. ust of terminal)
NAMe OF APPLIC,.l,NTISPONSOA ( indi viduall" :. iJ CUS;: od ;,'~n) i ausII';'SS ';!L!~"'O". ---- .
Cross Sound Ferrv Se:;vices, Inc:,." Adam C. Wt'g;lo\Jsl<i i (5',61 369-1iOO ___.
AOOFlESS
c/o William W. Esseks Eso.'
CITY/PO 108 East Main Street.
Essaks Kefter & An2el
P. O. Box 279, Riv8r~8a~
NAM. OF OWNER err dm"'ntl
Same as above
AOORUS
".~.....\
.
r srATE LZlP .C. OO!
u..--.1.. NY 1190 1
'~Es~reLePiloNe- ---
CITV/PO - ,__.~ =r-srATE I ZIP COCO
OeSCAIPTION O.ACTION The applicants are see;ins a public u,~ili'Cy U!ia varLnce ~o allolo'
parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A "'t.iver or variance wit:\ regard ~o ::.he
size of parking spaces is also being sou;iht in order. to maxill'izeoH-street:parking on
a parcel that contains an exiSti~g g~av~c parking at'ea. If ~he \Tari, ~ce is granted.
I the numb~r of. s.paces will 1ncrea'.'. from 69 to dO. this 1. 1>3 acre P"t'cel is zoned HI!
. Sins- /VfYIJ IV'I#/zQI/If'r-. R;..e_ex,4M1'SHJ/IJ (' tl!~C//I2&tJ, .~~GlIJ WI"- C<2NSIIJ6'Y?
please Complet~ Each Questio,:,-Indicate N.A. if not applicable ~) c;7Vn/etr !;I;~' .
A. Site Description
Physical settins of overall proiect. both developed and undavoloped .rus.
1. Preserlt larld use: ClUrban Cllndustrial .Commercial CResidential (suburban) CRural,:non,'ar!c,
o Forest OAllriculture .Other _ vacan::'
2, Total acreage of project area: 2.498 acres. (R-a",
APPROXIMATE ACREACE 1.193 acru,' (."l!!) PRESENTLY AHER COMPLETiON
Meadow or 3rushland (Non.agrlcultural) 1 . S 1 ~c;re' 0 acres
Forested 0 acres 0 acres.
Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland. pasture, etc.) 0 _. aCres. 0 acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Artkl~s 2~. 2S of ECI.! 0 __ acres 0 acre,
Water Surface Area 0 __ ac;res 0 acrel
Un vegetated (Rock. .a~h or fjlJI) (earth rd~dl1:ravr.l' 1. ) .76._ i,cres 2.20 acres
,ll.;o:rI(1n8, ranc:n ta1)lS, '0'0" en wa ,,$
Road.. blij;~lrI" anCl ClC er pav sur:ace, .OL,_ acres .08 .cres
Othedr (Ir1oicate type) beac:h _'" . ~i--,_ acres . 91 acre~
Lan sea.,. & crass ' ,1.3 ac-e~ .50 acres
3, What i. predominant soil type(s) on project sltel Haver~ loam. fil, land . c. b....c::1i
a. Soil drainage: .Well drained 75 'i of site CModerately well drair,ed ~ .or sl:e
.Poorly drained ',25 ~ of ,ite ' ". .
b, If any agricultural land is involved. how many .cres Q; soii ar. classified within ~oi! group ~ throush 4 0; the :'Iy-
Land ~Ias$iiication System? 1 .69 acres. (Sfe' ~YCR R J7C) . .' .
4, Are there bed:~ck outcroppinss on project site? Yes '.IN'J
a, What i~ ,~epth to bedrock? - ,'in feet)
2
SEP- 9-96 MON 10:18
P_05
.
.
.0.10% [no._ %
=1;% or gru:er
6 IS project substantially contiguous to, or con;aln . build,.,S, lI:e, or d,It"c:. Iosted on tna State or :ne "a:,,,".
Resisters or Historic Places? eVeS .~o . .
i Is project substantially contliuouS to a site liSted on :ne Regis:er 01 .'1ational Natural landmarks!
8 What is the dapth 01 the water table! 3-i:!: (in leet)
9 Is site located over a prlma,.y;.princlpal. or sole source aquller? .Yes ::::lNo
10. Do hunting. lishini or shell lishing opportunities presently exist In the project areal
11. Does project site contain any species 01 plant or ','nlmal life :i,.~ is identilied as threatened or endangered I
DY.., .No Accoreini :0. Jos~pn Lombardi. rechn1c'~ln
Identify each species
, 2 ,~re there any uniQue or unusual land lorm. on the prOle':: ",.' 'i e.. r.liffs. dunes. otner aeoioglcal ;or"'a:,<>ns;
uYe, .'10 D"scriba
::::l10.15%
%
%
; "pproximate percentage 01 proposed project s"e with slopes
::Yes
.j\,,-
DYes
.1'010
,~ I, the projec~ site presently usee by ;he c:~mml.:nlty C:i neqlC~bor;'oo.j as in open sp.~ce or recra.ltlon arei)
::::lYes .,'10 II yes. expla,n
Does the present site include sGenic views lenown to b. important to the community!
DYes .1'010
.,
.1
15 Streams within or contiguous to project .r.a: NI A
.. Narr.e oi Serum and name 01 River to wh,ch it is ;,ibu;"'1
1 6 Lakes. ponds. wetland areas within or conti8~ouS.t0 prOject area:
a. Name G..rdinars Bav
C, Size (In acres)
17 Is the site served by existing public utilitiesl .Yes ::;No
al If Yes. do..s sulticient capacitY exi,tto allow connection/ .Yes CiNo
"
bl If Yes, will improvementS be necessar~ to IoHow connect,on/ eYes ;;:J.NO
1 a. Is tna site located in an asricu'tural diltrict certified pursu..nt ;0 Agri,;ulture lond Mark<!tS law, A"icle 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304! DYes .No;
19. Is the site located .in or substantialiy contiguous to a Critical tovironmental Area deslgnateo pursuant to "'ticl. a
of ;h. eel, and 6 NYCRR 6t7-1 .Yes CiNo (Pacon:i.c ilay F.stl.luy) .
20. Has the' site evar bun uSild for the disposai 01 solid or hazardous wa~tes? DYes .1'010
B. Project Description
,. Phvsical dimensions and scaie of proiect (fiil in dimensions is IPcropnate)
a. Total contiiuouS acrealle owned or controlled by prClect sponsor
b. Project acrealle to be c:eveloped: ~ 691 acres Initiaily:
C. Project acrease to remain undevelope,! nnone acr~s.
d. lenllth 01 .,'oject. in moles: N'A _ (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an excansion, indica';e ,,'.,c.nt 01 expans,on proposed 220
f. Number of olf-street parkins spaces existing 221 _: proposed 486
II. MaXimum vehicular tripS llenerated per hour .,'" (uoo., ,ompletion 01 ~..oject)l ""'See attached
h If residential: Number and tvpe of housing unitS: III A latur from 01.lnn Enaineerina
One ~amjly ;wo Famli\ '-'~'~Iriole Family ~on.comin.i1,':17\
6.468 acres.
6,468 acres ultima:ely. (:i.. e,
"s.pproved So pre~ex1stinl parcel
"';
Initially
Liltimately
i. Dimllnsions (I" feet) or Jaraesr :;troposed HIIoI'ture "/ " r:e1Inc;
i, linear feet .of iron tale along a public thorQughiare proje" wiil occupy isl
. width;
88
lensth.'
it. .
.. 3
----.-~,_.-
,
SEP- 9-96 MON 10:19
P.t216
.
.
a.
9,
'0.
2. H.lw much natural material (ie. rock. ean:h, ecc,) will be rr.n:-,:>yeddrrom, the,llite? 940\ _dtonstc.ubiCd yares
, ~. ore ge spo. prev,ous '! epos'Ce on sica
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ."es DNa ,-,NtA
a. If yes. for what intend.~ purpose is the site being ruclaimed?
b, Will copsoil be stockpiled ror reclamation? .vc; DNa
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? DYes .1'10
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover~) will be removed from site? 1. Sl acres.
S. Will any mature rarest (over '00 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this Ilrojec:?
DYes IINo
6. If sinale Ilhase i'roject: Anticipated period 01 conltructio"
7. if multi-l:>haled: N/ A
a, Totai numter of phases anticipated _._ (number),
b, "'nticipate.d date 01 commencement Ilhase , month -
C. Approximate comllletion date 01 final phase .. month
d. is phase' runcticinally eependent on subsequent phile!! Dves
Will blasting o~cur during constructi'Jn? DYes .NfI
Number of jobs generated: during construction none.._; after project is cCllTlpleta_
Number 01 jobs eliminated by this project none
Will project require relocation of anyprojecu or facilities?
parking area
.
"
months. (including demolition).
year, (inducing demoli"c"
.. year.,
ONt;
" .
DYe',
.No
If yel. explain
13.
14.
12. Is surface liquid waste dilposal involved? DVes .No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sew,age, ,"dustrial, ttc.) .nd amount
b. Name of water body into which elfluent will be discharged
Is subsu,;ace liquid waste dispolal involved? DVes .No Type --
will su,;acel~rea of an existing water body increase or deeruse by propOlal? aVes .NO{jJ
Explain ~-
Is project or any portion of p'r!liect located In a 100 year flood plainl .Yes Cll'lo
Will the project atnerate solid'waste? OVes .I'lc ltYJolnoA/'lH,... S<JU.() w#re M/ft
a. If yes, what is the amount per month tMS tIllS'" 6t!;:1.,'l:aATt;O JI"$ If- 1l'tSrr.n.ra-
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste filcility be usedl DVes ONo P~St;.'tA1crf A<.-77VI7Y
c. If yes, give name ; location
d. Will any wastes not ao Into a sewase disposal system or into a ,,,~itary landfim
e. If Ves, explain
'. .
15.
16.
ClVes
Dl'lo
11, Will the proiec'; involve tne disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes. what is tne anticipated rate of disposal?
b. If yes, wh.t is the anticipated site lifel vears.
,a. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? eVes .No
Will project routinely Ilroduce odors (more than one hour per day)? DVes .I'lo
Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local amb,ent noi.e level,?
Will project result In an increase in enerlY ule? .\'es DNa .
If yes, indicate type(s) !lec1:ricity fat' parkir.c &t'u,JJ.s.hUne
.
22. If water supply is from wells. indicate pumpina capacl!) NiL- Ilallons'minute.
Total anticipated water usage per day --1i!.!L..-- g4l1ons/dav,
24, Ooe. project involve Local, State or Federal fundinal DYes
If Yes, explain
!:lYe.
.No
tons/month.
'9.
20.
21.
ClYes
j4.}O(Sc,- IMjll't'QS
.~o MIf'I
~70
11 tr' A "', .. nAf IIVlS.
23.
.1'10
. .
'.
4
. . ~.. " '
- -------~-
SEP- 9-96 MON 10:20
P.07
.
.
25. Approvills ~"quired:
Type
Subm,tt~l
D4le
City. Town, Village Soard
Citv. Town. Village PlaMing Soard
Citv, Town Zoning Soard
Ci:y, County Health Deparemenc
DYes
.Yes
.Ves
DYes
.,"010
~N,o
O~o
.No
.,"010
ONo
~No
Site Plan
~bli~ UtilitysUsz:
-r.R:'1 Q' a.Dac.. 1.
variance
varlance
~..nding
"..-Ul ~ 19 5
Other Local Agencies
Other Regional Agencies
State Agencies NYSDEC
Federal Agencies
. eYes
Suffolk Ctv,
Punnlng cOIMIIYos
.Y,s
_Zoning Action
Tidal Wetland Permit
pending
pending
O','es .No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1 Does proposed action Involvl a plannin8 or zoning decls,on'
if Yes. indicate decision reQuired:
Ozoning amendment .zonlng variance Cspecial use permit Osubdivision
.
!:newlrevision of master plan Dresource management plan Dother
" What is the zoning classification(s)ol the mel _MII 5< R.SO
, .
3 What is the maximum potential development of the sitl il developed as permitted by the present zoning!
69 parkin" SDa""s on M.-rr Dar"el oS: 219 SDa".s on R-80 Darcel
. .
4 What is the proposed zoning 01 the site? Plln Ii" Ut i 1 '1. tV lise
5 What is the maximum potential development 01 the site il developed u permitted by the proposed zoning!
Current proposal represents ma~imum development
6 I S the proposed action consistent with the recommended l.~es in adopted local land use plans? .Ves CiNo
7 What are the1predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications '...;thin a l' mile radiuS of(QrOposed action I d
~i~~i8r~t' ~~Qi~~a!n?REaO,i~~ ~~stII) to west; Residential R-aO) to, north an
a Is the proposed action compatible with adjOining/surrounding :...1d uses within " 'k mile1 .Ves 0.1'10
9 II the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? N/ A
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10 Will proposed action requir.any authorization(s) for the lormation of sewer or water districts!
11 Will the proposed action create a demand lor any commvnity provided services (recreation. education.
fire protection)? aVes .No
a. It yes. is existing capacity sulticient to handle projected demand! aYes 0.1'10
12 Will the proposed action result in the aeneration of tralfic slgniticantly above present level.r
, a. II yes. 15 the existinll road network adeQuate to handle the additional tralticl "", DYes
** see atta"hed letter from Dunn Engineering
D. Informational Details 7'lf!.Mt:.1'u,1IIt7"IW Ilyt#~ ."'CJP4 CvMCIVr tJ1G~h~ .M~
....ctach any additional information as may be needed to clarifv your project. II there are or may be any aeverse,
Imgi\C';5 iuocia~ed with your j:)rg"O:lliil, pl..,. djS~~." 11 .:;r I.P p~a :f~ ~~,?:;:1Jes which vou propose to ,mllia..e or:',
aVOid :nem leiSVlGl'tJrS'<) 4"1' : ~I.J?"/fh./I' ~ ~6FIJ?r' 8trOcn::(aA4I'k
E. Verification .,-6?;t;, .
I certily that the information provided above il true to the belt of mVfknowledlle. 1" / "
John J. Raynor, P.E., L.s., p.c. as agent or the app l"ant sponso~
Applicant/Sponsor N . Oate' 1 L/9/9S ____
Signature Joseoh Lombardi Titlp. Tech_nician
.VI!)
ONo
.Slte plan
OVes
..1'10
poi ice.
aYes
=No
0.1'10
If the '" on is in the Coast.' Area. and yOU are a state agency. complete lhe Coast.' Assessment For.... ~elore p~<>ceeding
with this .ssessment. '
,
s
SEP- 9-96 MON 18:20 ~.
Part 2-:IUJ.t:\,; I IlVI...,...'-','; /....... .. . -... ... ....
.' Responsibilitf d lead A~en"y .
Generill Informiltion (Read Carelu lIy)
. In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations bee.
reasonablel The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily sianilicilftt.
Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. IdentifyinS a,n impact in column 2 simpl-
asks that it be looked at further.
. The Exampll!5 provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever pouible the threshold 0
magnitude that would trigSer a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State an.
for most situations. But. for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may beappropriat
for a Potential large Impact response. thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. .
. The impilcts of each project, on each site. in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative an.
have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each questio.-
. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question.
. In identifying impacts. consider long term, short term and cumlative e:fects,
Instructions (Read carelully)
a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer .Yes if there will be any impaCt.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes anSwers,
c. If answer in a Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to Indicate the potential size of th,
impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided. check column 2. If impact will occur but threshol.
Is lower than example. check column 1. '
d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to P....RT 3
e. If a potentially larie impact checked in column 2 can be mitillated by changels) in the project to a small to moderat'
impact. also check the Yes box in column 3. ^ No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. Thi
must be explained in Part 3. '
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in a physical chanlle to the project sitel
ONO ~ES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of lengthl. or where the ieneral slopes in the project area exceed
10%.
. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is I'lSS than
3 feet.
. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
. Construction on land where bedrock is"exposed or generally within
3 feet of existing ground surface.
. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or ilwolve more
than one phase or stage.
. excavation for mining purposes that would remove more thar, 1.000
tons of natur.1 m.terial (I.... rock or soil) per year.
. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill,
. Construction in a designated floodway.
. Other impacts 5:,"'t"'tr ~.AAhtlJ.:. ~"J/ ~i.'r"JI1II(}i/A-L
. .
~ ;1AA.K1M lOr- f'JJ1ll<:'772lK:170AJ.
:I, Will thert be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found tin
the sitel (i.e., cliffs. dunes, geological formations. etcij)1('NO DYES
., Specific land forms: .. . _.-
"
:;
p_se
~-
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
~
0 0 DYes GNo
0 0 DYes 01'10
0 0 DYes CNO
0 0 DYes CNO
0 0 DYes CNo
0 0 DYes 01'10
.
0 0 OXes 0/'10 ;
0 0 DYes GNo I
K 0 DYes ONo
,
. .
.
'0 I
0 DYes ONo
. .
'".- '
5, Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater'
quality or quantityl ONO
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.
. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system,
. Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.
. Liquid effluent will be conveyed orf the site to facilities which presently
do not exist or kave inadequate capacity. '
. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per
day.
. Proposed Actil,..; will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
,. Proposed Action will require the storage oi petroleum or chemic31
products greater than 1.100 gallons.
. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water
and/or 'sewer services.
. Proposed Action locates commerciallnd/~r Indu5trial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing was\.~ treatment andlo' storaae
facilities. .
. Other impacts.~J',fU'" S~~""'~~1'y?t.u.:n~~ X
~-'flr AAdlMalLtOAAh. 9~d~ d~/Jlns;.J
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or pattErns. or ~....e
water runoftl ONO )'.....ES
Examples thill would apply to column 2 .
. P....""...,l Ar'i"n ~ould chanQe flood water flows.
SEP- 9-96 MDN 10:21
.
IMPACT ON WATER
3, Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected!
(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation La~CL)
, ONO ~ES
bamples thilt would apply to column 2
. Developable area of site contains a' protected water body.
. Dredgina more than 100 cubic yardS of material from channel of a
protected stream,
. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body,
. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
. Other impacts: CCA~t1n7&} IU ~.NV""" fI.:za;UN'
iC<;'J'J'~h-<Y ANrI IJI2IG1Vr cG14
4, Will proposed action affect 'any non-protected existi~,JI: new body
of water! . ~O DYES
Eumples that would apply to column Z
. A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water
or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
. Construction of a body of water that exceedi. 10 acres of surface area.
. Other impacts:
.
~'
U
l'
\
~ES
Small to
Moderate
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Cl
~
o
~
o
r-
_I
o
o
o
o
o
o
;]
o
-
2
Potential
Large
Impact
o
o
o
o
)it'
[J
o
c
o
o
[1
o
o
c:
[J
o
['
o
o
o
[J
P.0S>
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Change
oVes
oVes
DNo
DNo
DYes
DVes
oVes
DNo,
ONo
ONo
DVes
ONo
DVes
DVes,
ONo
ONo
DYes
DYes
,DNo
ONo
DVes
ONo
oVes
eNo
[]Yes
DYes
ONo
eNo
DVes
ONt!
DYes
'ONO
DVes
o Nt!
ONo
oVes
DVes
ONo
oVes ',C!No
DVes ,ONo
7. Will proposed action affect air ql:lality?
bamples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any liven
hour.
. Proposed Acticn will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of
refuse per hOUf.
. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ib~, per hour or a
heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed
to industrial use.
. Proposed ac.tion will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
. Other impacts: "';;"b~<'~ AJ nAl-~/n:- A.M!1
pFF- S'1f"r i/'~/c.L~ CI."~
ONO
):tes
't- o
'2 3
5 ...1 to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 . ~ ,)(Yes
ONe
0 0 Dyes ONe
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes ONe
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
K 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 C . DVes oNo
0 0 dves oNo
0 0 DYes ol'lo
0 0 DVes DNo
0 0 CJVes CJNO
, ,
I
0 0 OVes oNo
.
P 10
SEP- 9-96 MON 10:22
.
. Proposed Action may c.ause substantial erosion.
. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing draillale patterns.
. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.
. Other impacts: ,*tJ(;7r.r- 81>~ A utA. ...4(M /JbA-.JtM.I&,c--
rids.,.. flLt::"" /VI rIAA-,~
IMPACT ON AIR
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or enda~d
species! ~O DyeS
Enmples tht.t would apply to colu,mn 2
. Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York Qr Federal
list. USinl the site, over or ~ear site or found on the site.
. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat
. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other
than for agricultu~al purposes.
. Other impacts:
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threateq,e10r
non~ndangered species? ~ DYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or
migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
. Proposed Action require, the removal of more than 10 acres
of mature forest (over 100 years of alt) or other locally important
vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10, Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land r~~cesl
~O DYES
Enmples that would apply to column 2
. The proposed action would sever. cross or limit access to agricultural
land (includes cropland. hayfields. pasture, vineyard. orchard. etc.)
.
SEP- 9-96 MON 1121:23
1 1
. _lito 2 3
Potential Can Impact Se
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
. Construction activity would excavate or compact tne soil profile of 0 0 DVes oNo
agricultural land. DVes
. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than '0 acres 0 0 DNo
of agricultural land or, if l!lcated in an Agricultutal District, more
tnan 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent Installation 01 aericultural 0 0 DVes DNa
land management systems (e.ll.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches.
strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm
field to drain poorly due to increased runoif)
. Other impacts: 0 C DYes DNa
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
". Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO ~E5
(II necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section ~"
Appendix 5.l
examples tnat would apply to column 2
. Proposed land uses, or project components obviouslv dillerent Irom
or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. whether
man-made or natural,
I Pr!lposed land uses. or project components visible to users 01
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or signilicantly reduce their
enjoyment 01 the aesthetic qualities of that reSOurCe.
I Project components that will result in the elimination or signilicant
screeninll of scenic views known to be important to the area.
. Other impacts: '"
A1~ .~N~~.,-s //1= "~~J!IIVI~ I~Ar: AAA11.16HrIItAt
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed A, ction impact any site or structur'~Oi historic. pre-
historic or paleontological importance?' '0 DVES
Examples that would apply to column 2
I Proposed Action occurring wholly elr partially within or substantiiu:y
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National ReJister
01 historic pl..~~..
. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the
project site.
. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NVS Site Inventor(.
. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
'3. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open. spaces or recreational opportunitiesl \"t. .
Examples that would apply to column 2 ~O DYES
. The permanent foreclosure 01 . future recreational opportunitY.
. A major reduction of an open spaC,t Important to the community.
. Other impacts: --
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
)2(.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
DYes
DNO
oVes
ONO
DVes
DNa
oVes
DNO
DVes
QNO
DVes
DNo
DVes
oVes
DNa
DNa
DVes
oVes
Dyes
DNO
DNa
DNo
SEP- 9-96 MON 18:23
IMPACT ON T.SPORTATlON
'.
14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems1
DNO
~S
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
. Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
so~, of fuel or
~O DYES
15. Will proposed action affect the community's
energy supplyl
EaOlmples that would apply to column 2
. Proposed Action will cause Ol greater than 5% increase in the use of
any form of energy in the municipality.
. Proposed Action wi II require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission II" supply system to serve more than 50 single 0,' two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial Ilse.
· Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a ~I.t
of the Proposed Actlonl ONO 106~
Examples that would apply to column 2
. Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital. school or other sensitive
facility.
. Odors will occur routinely [more than one hour per day).
. Proposed Action will produce operatin, 1I0ise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that WOuld ac: as a
noise screen.
. Other impacts: #~~'?'J"'" li1lfo.~~ ,N,IJ~7""C 12~-n.lf..6
"JO IJ&::-JtM"J::" ~ l/~""- "'1J~~tflAr-i
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEAl.TH
17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and saf~1 .
. 0 DYES
Examples that would apply to column :I '
. Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substanc., (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals. radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level
discharge or emission.
. Proposed ^ction may result in the burial of "haurdous wastes" In any.
form (I.e. lololc, poi.onous, hiShly reactive. radio.clive. irritat:~~
infectious, etc.)
. Storago: facilities for one million or more saUons of iiquified na,ural
SolS or other flammable liquids.
. Proposed action may result in the excavation Or other disturbance
within 2,000 feet of a site used for the dispos.1 of solid or ha:tardous
waste.
. Other impac..s:
10
.U to
Moderate
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
)(
o
o
o
o
. 0
L__
:Ii!
Potential
Large
Impact
o
~
o
c
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
P _ 12
~
Can Impact Be
Mitigated By
Project Chang':
DYes
DYes
~s
DNa
'ONo
ONo
DYes ONo
DYes ONo
DYes ONo
DYes
ONo
DYes
DYes
ONO
ONo
DYes
ONo
DYes
ONo
DYes C!No
DYes ONo
DYes ONo
DYes ONQ
DYes, ONo
,-...-- ..........-------- ~. - -
SEP- 9-96 MDN 18:24
IMPACT ON GROWThttNDCHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing com~~1
ClI'lO ~ES
Ex.Jmples that would apply to column 2
. The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located Is likely to grow by more than 5%.
. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or oPerati"g services
will increase by more than 5 % per year as a result of this project.
. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or loa Is.
. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land us..
. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existinsfacilitles. structurRJ
or areas of historic importance to the community.
. Development will create a demand for additional community servic"
(e.g. schools. police and fire. etc.)
. Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects.
. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.
. Other impacts:
snt to .
2 3
Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated By
Impact Impact Project Change
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes oNo
0 0 DYes ONo
0 ~ oVes oNo
0 oVes Ol'lo
0 0 oYIS oNo
0 0 DYes DNo
0 0 DYes ONo
0 0 .Dves oNo
P 13
19. Is ther.. or is there likely to be. public controversy rela~ to
potential adverse environmental impactsl ClNO ES
If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or
If You Cannot Determine th!t Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
. .
Responsibility of Lead Age"cy
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(.) is. considered to be potentially l.arge, t>len if th,e impact(s) ftUly be
mitigated. .
Instructions
Discuss th~ following for each imp~ct identified In Column 2 of Part 2:
" Briefly describe the impact.
2. Describe (ii ~pplicilble) how the impact could be mitigated !;Ir reduced to a ,mall to moderate impactbv project change(s).
3. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is importa~t.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
. The probabilicv of the impact occurri"s
. The duration of the impact
. Its irreversibility. Incrudlnl permanently lost resources of value
. Whether the impaet can or will be controlled
. The relional consequence of the impact
. Its potential diverlence from local needs and loals
. Whether k,nown objections to the project relate co this impact.
(Continue on attachments)
l'
~ - ~_._--~~----'"'....~........_--
-
'\
.
. .
.
PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a Significant effec
on the environment. Please C;Qmplete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be conSldere'
as part of the application for ap'proval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additiona
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involy;
new studies, research or investigation, If information requiring such additional work, is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Ex ansion of off-street ark in facilities at existin
LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County)
S/S Main Road (west of terminal) and E/S Main Road (east of terminal)
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR (indi vidually & as custod ian) BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Cross Sound Ferr Services Inc. & Adam C. Wronowski 15161 369-1700
ADDRESS
c/o William W. Esseks Es .'
CITY/PO 108 East Main Street.
terminal
Esseks Hefter & An el
P. O. Box 279, Riverhead
NAME OF OWNER (If different)
Same as above
ADDRESS
\,
CITY/PO
ZIP CODE
NY 11901
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
)
ZIP CODE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The applicants are se ng a public utility use variance to allow
parking on a 2.498 acre parcel zoned R-80. A waiver or variance with regard to the
size of parking spaces is also being sought in order to maximize off-street parking on
a parcel that contains an existing gravel parking area. If the variance is granted,
the number of spaces will increase from 69 to 80. this 1.193 acre parcel is zoned MIl.
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: DUrban Olndustrial .Commercial ORes/dential (suburban)
OForest OAgriculture .Other vacant
2. Total acreage of project area: 2.498 acres. (R-80)
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE 1.193 acres (MU)
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland. pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECl)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (ROCkhea~h or fjJl)~( earth rd, e:ravelk )
.par:K1nl!),t rencn ta1ns, woud~n war s
Roads, buirdings ana ot er pave surfaces
Other (Indicate type) beach
Landscape & grass
3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven
a. Soil drainage: .Well drained 75 % of site
.Poorly drained '25 % of site
b. If any agricultural/and is involved. how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS
land Classification System? 1.69 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? DYes .No
a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet)
ORural (non-farm)
PRESENTL Y
1. S 1 acres
o acres
o acres
o acres
o acres
.76 acres
.08 acres
.91 acres
43 acres
loam. fill land
OModerately well drained
2
AFTER COMPLETION
o
o
o
o
o
2.20
.08
.91
& beac~O
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
% of site
?-,'.
--, --..
.
.
5 Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes
.0-10%
]00
%
010-15%
%
CJ1S% or greater
%
6 Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building. site, or district. listed on the State or the l'Jatlonal
Registers of Historic Places? DYes .No ' _
7 Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural landmarks? DYes .No
8. What is the depth of the water table? 3-7:t (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary;.principal, or sole source aquifer?
.Yes
DNo
10.
11.
Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?
Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified
DYes .No According to Joseph Lombardi. Technician
Identjfy each species
DYes
.No
as threatened or endangered?
12 Are there any
DYes
unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i,e., cliffs. dunes. other geological formations)
.No Deswbe
13 Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
DYes .No If yes, explain
14 Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
DYes .No
15 Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/ A
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributar:y
16 Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area.
a. Name Gardiners Bay
17 Is the site served by existing public utilities? .Yes DNo
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection?
b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant
Section 303 and 304? DVes .No
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECl, and 6 NYCRR 61i:? .Ves DNo (Peconic Bay Estuary)
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes .No
b. Size (In acres)
.Yes
DVes
DNo
GJ.No
to Agriculture and Markets law, Article 25-AA,
B. Project Description
1 Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill In dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor
b. Project acreage to be developed: 3.691 acres initially;
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped nnone acres.
d. length of project, in miles: NA (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 220
Number of off-street parking spaces existing 221 ; proposed 486
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour )'0'( (upon completion of project)? )b'(See attached
h If residential: Number and type of housing units: N/ A letter from Dunn Engineering
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
6.468 acres.
6.468 acres ultimately. (i, e,
"approved & pre-existing parcels")
%;
Initially
Ultimately
I Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N.j A height;
j. linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is?
'width;
88
length.
ft.
3
-------._~ .., -~. ~_.
...
..,--- ---
.
.
2. H0w much natural material (Le, rock, earth, etc.) will be rempved from the site? 940", tons/cubic yards
Kdredge ~poil previously deposited on site,
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? .Yes DNo DN/A
a. If yes, for what intend__. purpose is the site being reclaimed? parking area
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? .Yes DNo
c. Will upper subsoil be st"ckpiled for reclamation? DYes .No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 1,51 acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
DYes .No
8
9.
10.
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction
7. If multi-phased: N/ A
a. Total number of phases anticipated
b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1
c. Approximate completion date of final phase
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases?
Will blasting occur during construction? DYes .No
Number of jobs generated: during construction none
Number of jobs eliminated by this project none
Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities?
2
months, (including demolition).
(number).
month
month
DYes
year, (including demolition)
year
DNo
; after project is complete
11.
DYes
.No
If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes .No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc,) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged " -
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes .No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes .No
Explain
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? .Yes DNo
16. Will the project generate sOlld'waste? DYes .No
a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes DNo
c, If yes, give name ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? DYes DNo
e. If Yes, explain
17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
b If yes, what is the anticipated site life?
DYes .No
tons/month.
years.
18. Wili project use herbicides or pesticides?
DYes
.No
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes .No
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes .No
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? .Yes DNo
If yes, indicate type(s) Electricity for parkinl'( area lil/;hting
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/ A
23 Total anticipated water usage per day N/ A gallons/day.
24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes
If Yes, explain
gallons/minute.
.No ,-
4
,,;,1t;
....-T -- T
.
.
25. Approvals Required:
Type
Submittal
Date
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
City, Town Zoning Board
City, County Health Department
Other Local Agencies
Other Regional Agencies
DYes
.Yes
.Yes
.No
DNo
DNo
.No
.No
DNo
DNo
Site Plan
Public Utility Use variance
ParKIn~ soace SIze varlance
Pending
11/9/95
DYes
DYes
Suffolk Ctv.
P ~ann1ng cOIl1llllYes
Zoning Action
Tidal Wetland Permit
State Agencies NYSDEC
Federal Agencies
.Yes
pending
pending
DYes .No
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1
Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? .Yes DNo
If Yes, indicate decision required.
Ozoning amendment .zoning variance Ospecial use permit Dsubdivision .site plan
.
Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Oother
What is the zoning classification(slof the site? __~II & R-80
What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
s aces on M~ II arcel. & 219 s aces on R - 80 arcel
What is the proposed zoning of the site? Pub Ii c Ut i 1 i tv Use
What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by tbe proposed zoning?
Current proposal represents maximum development
Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? .Yes DNo
What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a V. m!le radi,us of(l2rodjo$ed action?
omm rc'al overnmenta n RPftO i~~ ~~stII) to west; Res1dent1al R- 0) to north and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land
If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are
uses within a !4 mile?
proposed? N / A
.Yes
DNo
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10 Will proposed action require--any autnorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts?
11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? DYes .No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? DYes DNo
12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? DYes DNo
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? *i, DYes DNo
** see attached letter from Dunn Engineering
D, Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
Impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
aVOid them
DYes
.No
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. /
John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S., p.c. as agent for the applicant spons/o,
Applicant/Sponsor :,~e,_ Date 11_9L95
Signature al"',~~d' (Joseph Lombardi) Title Technician
If tbe ac~ is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
5
.
_H'~~ -7 ----.-- .- ..,.,.
uunn l:.nglllet:llIl~ /""\,::,.::H...H....Il..h......0
Ccn~ultir1g Engineers .
66 Main Street
Westhampton Beach, N.Y. '1978
516-288-2480
December 5, 1995
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter & Angel
P.O. Box 279
108 East Main Street
Rivemead, New York 11901
Re: Cross Sound Ferry
Dellr Mr. Esseks:
We have reviewed questions B.i.g. and C_12 of the Environment As:;e.ssment Form fOT the
Cross Sound FelT)' proposal to expand the existing parking facilities at Orient to accommodate
& to1al of 482 parkmg spaces. We offer the following with respect to those questions:
1. Based on our knowledge of the Cross Island FelT)"s Operation, the principal users of
the proposed parking facility will be the uSers of the High Speed Ferry when that
service is in use. While this service is operational, a small portion of the parking
facility users maybe "walk-ons" for the regular ferry service but we :mticipatc this
wuu1d be minimal because of the difference in the 3rn01J1lt of travel time involved
between the regular and High Speed Ferry.
2. 1be High Speed Ferry service cum:ntly exists without benefit of the proposed parking
facilities. The ferry is capable of carrying 400 passengers, while it comfortllbly
accommodates 325. A1tbo~ 'We have not completed a vehicle occupancy study of the
Cross Sound Ferry operation, we would anticipate & vehicle occupancy rate considerably
in excess of 2 people per vehicle, Le., at least 3 people per vehicle. It is to be DDt:ed
!bat the Town Code calls for a vehicle occupancy rate ot 4 mtllVltlws per I space of
parking for many heavy volume, low turnover business or entc:rtainment operations.
Taking a conservative approach and assuming 2 people per vehicle each High Speed
Ferry trip has the potential to generate 200 vehicular trips. Actllal study of the .;n,Atl on
would no doubt indicate a lesser volume.
3. An examination of trip records of the High Speed Ferry during its initiai use in August
1995 indicates that the first morning trip leaving Orient Point is the most heavtly
loaded, almost at the capacity of the ferry on some days. 1be second ferry trip runs
somewhat less full, running 20 to 30% under the volume canied by the first fcay. A
third ferry run earries less thnn 20% of the rated capacity while the final three ferry's
.
.
- Y'" p~
.
-~~--
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
December 5, 1995
Page 2
from Orient carry even fewer passengers. The reverse is true of trips arriving from
New London. The last two trips ar:e heavily loaded, the fourth ferry carries less than
20% of its capacity and the three earliest trips are only lightly loaded.
We dQ DOt expect the provision of additional parking to affect this trend as it appears
more influenced by the nature of the passenger's trips then the service provided.
4. To answer question B.l.g., "What is the Maximum number of trips generated per hoUt'
upon the completion of the project?" It must be determined whether the conslruclion
of the new parking facility will increase the use of the ferry. The fen:y service already
I exists. Bettet', more convenient parking facilities could genemte m<lt'C use of the ferry.
As the first trip out of Orient is currently almost at capacity lIlId so is the last trip into
Orient; there is little room for increased. traffic generation in connection with those runs.
I. The third ferry out of Orient currently carries less than 20010 of its rated capacity, 50
while there is potential to ~ncrease use of this ferry run, it appears that this ferry is not
used because it is inconvecient for patrons and no increase is expected. The ,""",,,;n;ng
.1 three late ferry runs also appear t~ be too inconvenient for travelers and therefore, no
increase is expected to be generated. With the existing usage, the second ferry could
! accommodate ~ximarely 75 to 150 more passengers generating 38 to 75 more ears
1 at a maxim~;ne only cOnstraint to the existing condition WII.!I the cummt parking
:!liruation and not a matter of service timing and customer preference. This would in
turn result in a projected 38 to 75 vehicle increase in 'the return ttip from New London
to Orient for the fifth return trip of the day. No other increases in traffic would be
anticipated. Thus, this increase could be anticipated for a two hour period during the
day. More importantly, the total number of trips occurring on any given hOllr
associated a ferry roo. would not be greater than is currently associated wi.1h the first trip
out of Orient in the moming and the last trip back to Orient in the evening.
Ibis increase in traffic would also only occur if the constraint on existing fer:ry
utilization m the existing parking conditions and based on the capacity carried by the
ferry service on a peak dl!)' in August 1995 it appelU'S parking ~ not the constraint on
use, 1'llther it is the convenience and timing of the existing service.
S. We note from a review of passenger records obtained from the Cross Island Ferry that
there was considerable variatioo in. usage of the High. Speed Ferry. Peak usage
oCCUJred midweek Tuesdsy thro Thursday with usage being 28% higher than the Friday
thru Monday period. Thus, if parking were tht: coDStrtlint on usage, it would be
expected to be a factor only on those days of peak usage as the existing facilities are
already accommodating an average of 28% more users during the midweek peak. then
during the off peak period.
6. The High Speed Ferry service exists and is currently generating vehicular trips. The
.
.
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
December 5, 1995
Page 3
.
most convenient ferry J'III\S are almost fully loaded. The constraint on tJ:af:Iic generation
appears to be the ferry service and the desire of patrons to travel at ccriain times of the
day and certain days of the week. The proposed parlcing will provide more convenient,
safer parldng for those patrons already using the ferry service. It is not anticipated lhllt
the provision of additional parking will, in and of itself, generate. JUbstantial new nse
of the ferry. Even if new use is generated. OD same ferry nms the new use will not be
greater than the existing use of the first ferry from Orient and the last ferry from New
London. .
7. Based on the foregoing, the answers to question C.12 is as follows:
Question:
.
Will the proposed action result in the generation of tr:affic signific8ntly
above present levels?
Response:
The projected increase in traffic, which would only occur for II. total of
two hours ,Ii day, will not be significant in terms of the overall traffic
accessing the Cross Sound Ferry Site. The answer is "No".
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contaCt me.
Sincerely,
~~
I?;r
RONALD N. HILL, P.E.
Principal
RNH:as
L9.50862
I
II
II1&1V -
..
-..
.
.
7'f::rl' ',,) /'2" ,/, . I : 'i, . i '! . .
EASTERLY VACANT R-80 PARCEL-
FEE OWNER: ADAM C. WRONOWSKI
69 SPACE OFF-STREET PARKING LOT _ I') - 'i - ,it, I
FEE OWNER: CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC.
J .' ~. ) .....~. t;
~'Jo .
ADJACENT LOTS OWNED BY CROSS SOUND FERRY
I
,
, .
\'",: I ,
,
-
-
11
~.
,-
000 !
01 5 (TI)! ,~I.f. III_II ....rt.,J" 1'1.." I,l..,"," _'r 1"1.,.,..1 Jf' . ",lIb I.,,'l.lj.,~> ,m<l
I 1IllI',..v.lIt"!lI' II., ,.. ""-"1.''', "'11;11", J". J..", .~nd b,':n," .11 "I i,nt. T,,\ofn..' S,'t1thnld.
'"01) I (;"U1I': l)' <::"ffulk ..'-,_J :;[.1(....1 ';'"\0' Yurk, ;,ltJ I.,-jn\ '''''':'l,I,..j .IU,I l.ho.;'rlh...d ,1:0 {<lIIi''''!III:
ill I """"""" ,.. . ~'n'>m,'''' ,,' "n l.,' ".",..", II"., ,,' 'n.J """ n, '0'.""" ,,(
lv~f (.oI!'.:Jr~.' E. LHh,JfII, Jr. 'tnJ R"f..'- Luh.IIll, .1[ PI "'f "th'"'''lp-1 C"P"':" ('If )..,,1 nC'V ur
,-J~J~Lr,'r,..'rlv <If R."t"v 1..1l1..I;n _'11.1 II.. -;1'll'h""-,.;',_r:\' ,-, r." I ,.j ""d '"","" I ('-'r!...'1 h.. ,.f
~.. ~ 1.f.lIU.~ r;;. L\fIlA:-l. Jr.;
.: W,-, ;., Rl~~r:-.il" nlF.~(T tl..,.; l.u,.! .unv,'\'",' ,'r I,' I,., . "lll',.\,,'.! h\" ....~,ll:....t'I:,. r. ,.(hal~.
~. 'I~I fr. 11,,1 A.,(...\. LIIll.lm (" \",','r,:.. I. LlIl',un. ./r. 'I,.. 1,'IL'wi".. IA'" ,', ..r........
.....' II) IIn, ,.' ..x:..l1....~"" ""lIlh,'rlv .'1 rh.. '"'I"-I,'rl\' II...,..{ '", ,I land ..'" '(
--,(' Iflnn.rl\..{ 11.'1'0\' L.tt".lm. -"'''III,:l ,I"lo:rl'l'!" ':", mlnu(,... l(l ",,"<lr.,j<; '~'-I!'t 110.0 {(.,.t:
th,'~""
'"
113G6r~385
Q......C1...'........,..''''~.l_J......
.-r.,...
Qn all ftaJ&; M~@! ~N !rrsrn~ ~M ~lJr. r~l~:
l'll;;)../..
.lOO_VI _ I
..'.11", AU IT,U, LIO...,...,... CO
....c-., ~ c'_ to; ,~"O..
ltn...m
s..... 1,,'n.l.
!!., T',,,
"', t','H"
'- '11' "~:Tr;H ....AI I~ ,,,-,.;,. ;. ... I: h .11, .I,j.) r'..... ,f
II '1 11"':0
r..rry 'f r.'tof.
0"
_",~ taJl ......,...t. ro.'"", "'~
"'T~"....t ,,, !<rI""',..,r', 1../1
""..!..,Il.lfl lor I.. ~ .1.
1t.',....1I, ,J,...<pt-",-f." 141 '1~!rr_,
......i",."....
,.."... A.:.I:'I1 ".1.;'-.
.L ~ ~ \.; J.J:
..'.....'
.. ..~' ~.
C. '.'r.'1," .!
...r."l,......i
l:-,...,r rho \ ,,~.>
~ I,
"1t"......",J",,,,,.
r. rl
'; I r .', I. 'i,~
,,-,..,.
',,"! 'I,
~. r. ,.. .t.-'.'..J~,,/,.j '.. ,A,- Rd.,......,
d,..... h~ 0..-..... '.n.......:. n.",.. ,-.1,,,.... .,...J /"""-'''' (/.." 1'( /1<" ....,.. "'.. 1:.1, ',""r.. ,,,..J .."". .It. _n .."'... ttl
tJ"... '"'" ",.,,, ,~,..,}. .... ""..r'" A. .... "..., f'JCJIl'PI/t ,t;.n','rr. .,11 tit. r,vO.! I" 'lit. "nf'. "I",,~ flOod ./'''''''f114
"";"""'~''''r fI,,, 0... !:,I"'~"r j /. ..r ,.....,It, I., A".., '" ..r -'. 'n ',' '-. j "'.1 ,,".. ""..r, "r . I i':'l Jl'lf.-r...'t
(" ." ~,'I" "..',. in "". I ,d 1.....llh~ d... 1'11',..1 I r,',.,i... '.'
(2) S""th f.R dt')o(r,."... O.'1l1iJnu..... II, s.c-nnlb LI",t I'.)
"rJln.-u", Ill.d. .q(,.r ~l..rk, ,.lrdlllt'r'l 8'IV;
1'111:\/:1 ...'..(In...,...t,'rl\' .1/"'.1: ".lld hi.:h .....1(t.r 1l'.1rk ~'l()
("l.t
<nOrt' "r I..",,,, rn
:L"':
, 1.10<1 "f Llnk"....\Il1
......lO.r;
,h'~r".,s
rdF.NCE .111l1l~ ""II,J I .d ;Inol .,IIIng 1;1"" ""'J Ill' ("nn"rlv lIf ~,lth:Jo'..'n ,"..rrf-! 1.:.
~l ,11011["" ioU ,"'l'(;"OU.. W".;t '}l1lt fl'~'l, Ir.,lrl' nr Il .....
Tllt~I:F ""lIllnllilu: .11",11' ",11,/ I.-'n.' ,,,'w ur 1""""'1'1\, ,( ~.1(h'H1S"fl '1.,. 1..II"Io...'lI~
II... ,.
,'....r." '.
i:
,.
")
:;.."c " .., ,I,.. r'T'; '" 1llI'.lIl.... 'Ill '"'1''' I, \.,'....1 '.M ,II I..,.,
'.,'r:1I '" .,. 1"',"; 'Ill nil' , , '" ;1'1 . ,., d ~. \'....~ I I.'. ,II ~ ", ,
:;,".; " hi .I",'r,.,.., ,. "'!IIIIl .' '.f! '" ,.,," I, l..""" , !. .'1 ,.. , '.. , !;
l. I'm/nIL'; .., :1.1111 no, ..
nlf':~cJ: .d,.I.... ''''''1.1 "'I.~I"I 1\, t.'rllll"".. S..rtll III ,I,. '1'1....
101,;1 1/,.l'l7 ("1'1 1";1 m<lllllm"'ll "d l;jnd..f 1.1'11" ;,...1.1",1,..... IlL'
TIIF.Nf:r ,,1",11: ';.1,01 Ll',o! ,( 1."1'1' 1'<I'III.III.~hlt,,,, ""., ,111.1
tJ'''",'l(1 .1I1d '1.'1,1 OIll..., 1.111.1 11II!, ,'f 1,'rn"II\- I" ''''I,.,; r'III',11ll ~:"I'h ',1 ,'.,'"
I') "'l'cnnLlI'l F.ast ."'7.e f,..,t (0) rl'" pOint ,'r -.In," ..1 "~':1!,;~1':1:,
IU:IW. ,\'111 INTI':WU:lI t" h. Ih,' "',,"L" p't''''I.".... ''''1\',.\"." I" I... f'r:Ul/"1 I,. /', f I
I,.. /It,,'r! .I.llL't! .'l"VI',,,h..r 'I, l'lili ;.HrI r"""",'d !n It... SuCI..n :"11111,' {'l..(l 'I'll...
N.,'.'. IlIh,'r I'. 1"11i In I.lh,'r li'II.!, 1"1,'( 1/.
T!>O.I.:rllI.H ~ITII ,III Il-,:hl. 'Itl,. .Jnd In."n...' In Ih,. 1.1""(,,,-. II 111\'. h.-~, ;:,
",", t.' ';,,,',II",'r "J '\'1\' "1101 r h,' ,.",d.. "lid. 'h,. "".11.,1" t I,. l',.. ": i " ,Ill I.. , ',,' .,...
"'1'''11,', Ii
,
I
.' '" "" "'II
"n
'''!,''Il\' :
.. i I ~ , ,."
l'I,'wl",..;,
(".101.;"
dl"h', wllh 'I'
1', '011"""," "11.1/ ,,-I
11'1" ".1;" 1"".1,1.
. ,""''''''Ior_,
rll',"-Idll 111'1'1.'.
,01 "I \'"" lot
"111> I"'l
d'I,." I..
!.. ~ I ,~I, I" ,./
"". "'''1'.1,01
",I".,., ,''',
"11"'-'1'/".1
:.....1.,,:
'>11".1','. I"
SI'II.II:1 TIP _':101 r,.. "W ,I .'1; I".., I{ f:hl "1 lh~, (,,1' d' .",r .";,.
'I"'l~"'rlv .-d./,. "I I!", ';11' j,', I I...'.nl/...... In La'llr .,{ 1'1""10./..,'''' ''''1'',.,''.11..1'
",'', "I' (... "1l,'rl\" ..t' n..t..." 1..1(10;1111.11"1 now." '..rm. 1",. ,>I \.I., II i.-,,., I.. ~'.
n". J. '1'111"1'1.' ..;f,j,..., ",(01 rld,l ", .....1\. ".I",~ d";"lh,',1 ;,,, f..ll"w<;:
f\I'(:I~'\I'-';,; .It " m.'IHlllh'nt ill :11. "''''1,'-1''' I 'r~.illll" ,'1 'bl.. "lIt,' F.
...h .'1, .~.... rnl' I ''';Irt,,-. 1/.. [",,' -'<", l I, ., .' { t h,-. ..;,'111..... '''.( ,'I' ". .', rn,' I' "f 1.1'1.!
,,,p,: l,d,llI.1 1',,;,( i'll' {~"I"I'-"I" ...'h,'r.. I' 11l("r..... (., """ I~H' nlin "f 'It' .:"."
RP~I~II~:': TIII".': ~"'Il, hI ,1....r"."1 '.t> mlnl.I," ',(. "".,,,,1" 1''-i'_1 :17,fl f" I 1(.
Ii"
"',':!"
.r ("''l!'''1
"""1.
m""'h~,."t I1"W "I' (..rl'l,'r I.
.r'l'r,l.
l i 'I
I ,"\ I
,~
,i
Rfii,;1D '
..
l
I
/.
'~f .
J'J'...t
Ct.,
:. "'-r
'J':
';
I
L__.
'1)
....).
,~
I~
II5l
~-:
~
IE
.
lIE
iIE
I a::'
~-
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
e I .. ,': '''''1'
, ' I
!. . f' I I ,'" ,~...
, . . .-'J!
, '. #- . - r .iI.~i
'I l~' ...
, .,
." .
. .
,"
- .
~ " , ' I - "
..:.,.. . ,
?,
l'
..
, .' 0
. I . '
, . ,
,
~ .
t .
fl:\';:-, ':';~! .. 'it-
..
11396rr..l86
it", 111\'Ut CLub III 1!i~,lb II>, l,ro'IItI""'" Itrro.hll 'H"....n. rr/"'Il,,,.'.III" "Ili, rll,illl{,'/ ,j'ilh..II tit(
1l,.,,"'l1nlll~f n' 11',('1 /II" j(, I, "~'~f.~ ,,,,,I '1I./u Ih.' """,'in," 1'/ /J.rm ",1.1 IlIftllll''''}' "'jr",,',,''1 hrir~ 11":1 ,tUI-f"A
f."r~,"'r, .ill thllt /10 Ill..,. /III' !:,ll'Il_."" ,.",. 'hI' /l,'/"lIJo>.ur"/t II".".. ,ot)olrrrlUlln Ill" II../tilltllf "",. Ill'" o~ltrr I>(rlll>/I
r/.,jmi,,!: II "dr' f,r rllnul!/l, 0" H,!, "...,. .ihll/' hrrffl/I.,,. /,,1/'" ""II rllll"'. riyM IIr titlt' i" <" '" ill< IIT"II';"'ll ",.
""/1 ""rl '/""""1 "lit th,'rd-'-"'" /.I." /i../ "" .,,,,llll"1I II'" /)/1 0.0'"'' ,J,.'.fl:1", ("r,l't',. btlrr,.d ,,"d I'fr/Il,/..I.
h ..1/ ,da...... ",..... /" "",, I""'''. I"~ ,..1.,,,. ... ,..I" -.."..... .;~..../ '.... ,~.-... ~/", tI'..".,.., ,Ii, ,.4",,,/..,
'"11''/''' ,,,,,..IN" .. ..,.,,,./,,11.. .~.-I,,,. ,/,' "I"'" ./, ~,...,I.-r ,., ~~ 'I' It.. ,....., ,110, "."~,,, ,...t""....., '."W "'1>''''
." ~."f/,-.I tI.." ,,,.lrlf"'I'II1, or 'f II 1'lIrl'"rlll',,".
1'_'Jlrn".' 11",1 i/i> r""M,rn'" /1"1,1 '/l/H' hrn'lllll//iffd
)" lliitnr.... 'jt!htt't"f, fl.,. /:.i",...", hu" """,,',i
;, JIIl~ r'llu,','lh ." J''''':<~"r,. r" I.. _"II/,.d/'_1I il:< rU"'H'''1I1r
tit ill r.t 1f(, ,/",i "l 1/"",.,,01"'1 ' t!J'lI
,"I',:,,,,.,,. SnJ/..d.,,," /J..Ij""ro"j ;,j 1/-'""0 """ro "f
""AU,.,,,..., /"1
, 1
'J'
I.
I';h'.~
...AIJ*'fr....
I
~
/,.
1 J.
'1: .
~ , . I "" 'oJ :.
/, ., "
L' ,I
.~ II jIl R. '." !lII
I,
j ...J
.\ ( II '<I~" j-t ~ It
'- '
~9. ~\(;\ (. ,
.-,..\\JJ.~...
~ .I '~IO P,'l,'r ......'o,........kl
$I,\~t .f IC.""ttti,,,I, Cl:",,"lll .r f..f,/,UIt",:-..t,.., In.4/.w&..J'..,.,
TIt"/""'''I'''" i"1/ltrll""."j 11'1'" nr'-""w'rdlJf'tI ;W/,." In" tlti. .:11'" do" II/ rk"~mllt'r
19 ';1 . hlJ .Julin Pl'l,'r \'r"r,'''~lkl. il" hl!4. rrC'(' nC'} l1'ld dl!L'd.
I
~~ ,.
~ -
"
L"~" "
-:g i1
.~ L "
;; ,j
M ~
~ ~ " -
0 ,- ,., " ~~
. ~
- :': , ~ <
~ > -, '../i "
~ " " '.
, 1 , "
~ , " c
~ J " C: c "
~J ., ~ '. Q 'J
" "
'. :.< ;. ,
, .r.
" "
0, " '" .,
~ ,- "
g Ii: t: , ,
" . .!,""
" r.
0' ... < '1
_.".",..-."......~'.,~ .......-..........,-""""
, -!
)1 JI '" {;l{' ", '--. I
..._...1 ..__1. "............t...........,'__.../...;..::"::
;, ~ '*f~M'/ W". ,1,1". Ii VI;;' ( ,.-;. t;L
{:...... ..~.' Jtu.444 'i,', r' r {-..".,.,..
IlV/IA., P. Jof.M.
It~ ~u,,,,, if ,\1-, fiJ~/~[
;:: I I I~
i
, I I .
1 , I,
, I .~
, "
I .
,
~ ,
0 0 .-
i 0 : - 0 '.
0 . . , . ..
. .. r . , . .
~ . .
It 1
I UW . ; . "
0 ~
- 00 ,. . ., . V<
. 0 u
~ j It Z i . . .
~ - - I-'~ , , . . ~
'" 0 . . ~
" " ~ .. . ~ > ..,
. - r'" . .
'" . T
t 1 J. > - . .
-'" . 0 .
f ".J r
, ,I
4 j .
" II , .i - ,'1
~
..'I)''}''1
,
VI '"
c:: "
.., '"
..,.C"'e
0,... --
,...,... t"
~ ,- ''1
<>~
go~
Z' ..,,,
.... ...
-< ;;
..,
j-
0"0
VI
-
""'
~
.
...
..,
a
'"
"
...
"
.~
~
.
-
~
-
H_ .. - ----. - ,
r' --
. I' SUfi'OLK COlJNTI" CLERK :, 1..>::88 ~ . Iif
i IJN Ii lJJ':PLtiW-.... . - ~J
...
Numb.. ol ..... ~ s ~~bW ~' ~
,. C". , {,
./ - .- J
.. RfCf. ~$TATf .,n ~ ,- J
...... 6 " ~l.
TOij: ~N" , - '. "
DEe 6 ,,93 0'-;"- )! ,~ Sf
vc.;C' "
.krill" !;:
4' lHA:lidR (AJ. c;-n-s:
7 . :z: - ui
C,.r111kaletl ., 51! rOU . ... .z. .
-< '""'
o I'ir', .....
.
.,
~ Il\lortp~ Inltl'1lMellI Deed I MortPEt Tu S....., -..I....~ ..
, "
. I ....... ..
'iP=> .
,
'.p/l'1ll_. 'ee -... A.L ._.f".
=iB8 1.....icTu ~~.\
H...u... " ..
1. SOI<YMA <-.
11'.,.. '--
"
lIleUl.*' ------- SoloT_
.- ;)( UO
[A.51., (C....J) ') . vi) S.bTulal 1. SpuJAd.. "-
") r-iJ:)
EA....5117 (Sc..k) _C~.t f ~ TOT. MTG. TAX
R.r.T...s...A. .'j ()() ~~~~) halT...... _0." C...y_
UddrorA.P-lkrnllb...(_
C.... of Ed. _5_"_00_ I(D.? 00
~ ---.....~ TJ'MIfcr To. I
Am......., .,. ~...'!;. yo~~
M.... Ta: "- ,
CcrtU'led Cop, -.--.,....- .
--5J.i c) i) ,
1t...,..0I be &.pNftlf by . __ _.. ,
..... CopJ S.b Tof" ,..ayllfwdUac"'" ';.J;
,
(D. 00 YES_ er NO_
0'.... GRAND TOTAL If NO.... .ppnp....e... d.._
.....;;:z.-., ..- r-.c' 01........_
r'51 -, Real PrvprtrlJ Tu Serrice AllnC1 Vcriflc.au.. , Title c..,..:r W.......
5er. l.<Il ..
9
1000 011.00 09.00 010.001
Chic81!'O Title Tns. Comrsf1V
1.1I.w3 COGIPM1 N.nHt:
9311A-n4tl'i)
~EPAlDBV: nfl~ N.",",r
. TlTtE INSl;:!ANCE COlA!"....
_ 7 ("...11_ Cbttk~ Ch.~_ ......-.uo coumIY I .)AD
PayerhmcuR&. R 185 OLD HEAD NY ttDllt
- RIVER .
OR; Ch.C!ll~O Tlt J@ rn~urancp. Co.
. I RECORD .r. RETURN ':"0
J Suffolk CGU~lty Recording & Endorsemeut Page
.
This poge form. part of th. ahacbed Deed mid. by:
(Deed, Mongage, etc.)
- IIP.D .\:lJ:'Jnr.iRtp.!I
r;le pranbft he-rein is 1U."ttd in
SUFFOLK COUNlY, NEW VORl;;.
I
TO In 'he TOWN or Southnlc1
r.ro'!\:~ Sounn Ff'rrv Services, rnc.
J. .h. VILLAGE
(r1L\.\ILf.T or Or1"nt
.
i''lf'f'!' I (If 1
.
f"-~
"
iJ&rP'
1000
15
10.1
.rl
......
1 ~,.""" LA..... -,. ...-:0--- -,- -...... o. "'- .....
nll3lllDfJll\JltE, ~h< of::' do,oI ~~~fo. .....-....... .nety-t:.--.,. .
8EJ'W'f.IJf IIBB ASSOCIATES, a Nelol' Jersey partnership w-1ch offlcl.,-.C.;',<J.
clo DAvid H. ~liJuvelt, JOs. "'cstqate Road, Rld~.vood, " ,.i:";-'~'.'"::J~
Maw Jer5~Y, 074sa
PU1J 0( Ulc 6n( pu1. and
CROSS-SOUND FERRY" Sl!:RVICES, INC., . C':Innectlcut Cocporatiori"
having its principal offices at 2 Ferry Street, PO Box 33.
New London, Connecticut 06320-0033
pan, 01 \he ..."".t pan.
~ Wrnnr.5! r:rH. IhaC the pan, of t~ fir. piut. in considtracion of len doIlan J.nd 0'lM1' niualJlc con~
I pl.ld by lhe put)' of 1M S<<Ond ~rt. docs btrd.')' pnl J.nd ~htc unto IW part, of the HCond J*', the hri~
I or .~n and .nicns of the part)' 01 the ~ part lotnt'f.
ALL lb.' CC11aia p&ot. piece at partf'1 of land. _jth the buikfinp and imptovcmenb IhcnoD. cnctcd. situate.
j I)'j~ .and brin&: in Iht Town oJ Soutbofa. Cotmty at SuifoIk met $Ute 01 New York beina: bowried:
MId dacribed. .. foUowa:
9
I'EGINNING ., . poUlt on Ihe ooulherty _ 01 Moin Rood (N'tS 2S) 0I1he r""'~...... _ 01
land now .. _oly 01 c.w. Sound Fury _. Inc.; aald poUlt .. pit..: oIlqinnlns i>dn&
~so dbW\( 21.62 (ftt westerly .. meAl'lUt'l!'d Allong the southerly .ide of Main RoI-:i (NYS 25) &oat
Its In_ wi'" Ihe Southwesterly ,ide 01 Lond 01 New VorL SIt... """ Iran Nld point or
floce 01 bo1lInnlng along ....d now .. Ionncrty 0/ c.- Sound foyy s.mo... lno. So,,,, 21
depea. f11 wnu,". 20 MCOnCb Eui S92." fftt to ttw II1ftn high WAiter marlt of GIrdiner', s.y;
THENC\! "'onS .... m.... hip w.... awl< 01 GadInor'. Boy along . 110 line Soudr 69 ~ rn
minutes. 00 HCDnCb Weat 121.67 fed 10 land now t1' foanerly uI US ~mt 01 Apk1Iftun;
TIfDKE ""'S Lond n... ar "'""ed, 01 US 00J>v=.... 0/ Atri<u/- North 16 dear-. 15
mJnuta. 30 HWnds Wat 603.0 feet to lttc Southnty Iide 01 MaIn Ro.d (NYS Z5); and
i:-
."
....
...
~ TIlENCE ole", Ihe Soulherty side 0/ Moin Rood (N'tS 2S) Nocrh 76 degroa, 2S ..-. 10
_ .... HCon<b Eas' n.!6 r..t .. lond now .. ",""erty 0/ era.. Sound foyy Inc., .. Ihe poUl' .. floce 01
......... BEGINNING.
\--. TOGFnlER WITH .n Ihe rlp~ dn. .nd In......, 01 Ihe pat!' 01 Ihe fin. port. 0/. In ..d .. ....
land undn' the watnw of wrdlrwr's o...y adtotninalaid J""'IftIM'S on ttw South.
',;
'....( 8.:=1NG the S4me premlMt cMtcrI~ In dM 0..... U6IBI _nd rKnnIed 4122/88 In li~ 105n cop
248 .nd dHd datl'd 9I1M m:orded 12119/89 In Uber IlJlJM cp 381.
..;)
A
TOGETHER .... of npr. ohI. oed 1_ a ..,.. 0/ tho party 0/ ~ 10 oed .. ... - .... .
,..d. .b~ the ..." ctacribat pnm;.s to .. cattcr Ii.. thenoi. . HEI. ro- "'A~' NO' TO
.nd .11 the eICaN: and ricfU of dM partr oIlbt AtII put I. aacI tie .id ~: H A
HOLD the pnmi.. hmSzI cnattd unto lhe puty of the wcoad put. u'" hcin or ~ &ad ...... 01
the putY 01 the I<<OfId w:art fOf"eYCl'.
"J
lL,
--l
(\..
AND doc put, 01 the fine 1*'. in ~ianct wilh Section 1301 w: Len lA., ClO't"Cft8CU be die i*tJ 01
lfN: fine ~rt will receift the C'OII.Kkra1;..n 'ot thi. COO1'e)'U"'T .Dd will hold the ript 10 reed" .... ClDMiIJ.
-:n'iotl", tnm fund tD be .pp1ied lint for the. purpaM 04 P:'..-fnt the. <<.c of tht i......_._._.A aftd win IPPIY
lhe fI.I'M lint 10 tt..- papncnC Oflhe cod of tht _"l""'_.~.....:I.1 ~-fore _.., .., part .. the cocaI of the .....lfr
...,.......-.
ANn I~ f'l;rt, trf the- lint ,.rt ('O'ftMn" .. wao..-.; that IUd .....Itf of dM Ant part .. ..... .. lhe .ad
prcmisn in f~ ~m,~e..nd hu pod ri.h: 10 COlI")' the ..one; tN.t the prIII1y of the xccncI ~rI thaJ1lIaietl,
mjo, 1M ..id pl't\cWs; .... !he IUd pmniM't an free frvrn inr:umbranea. t'IIn:pt ... .f~: thle tht
pln, ollh~ lint pur will Detule or J'IUC'U'C an)' f1rnhft' ~ ~., the tille 10 taMS~:....
IMI uid par1'J' of :he fine put w\R fatn'CT ..unnt tho; ~ 18 .... ........
1lre word "pi. ty . ... be CllMIt1"VIIId .. If It ... ..partin.., ___ tte_ "" ttIIilI ~ 10 .........
'" wrnrESS WHEIlEOP. .... party 01.", 6.... pen ... """ .s..',,,," ",Ii _ ... do, "'" "'" 6nr .....
wnntft.
h. .,......C&.,;
-- It
H8B ASSOCIATES 'f BY:
, (.....,),........, d, >,-V <" ,,-,<.(,
U..._I;~- JOym: IVt S,,"OWELL ) ,
l./i ' /} h' _ ' .,I-
7/1..vy~~_/...... "'U..,(C-~/-t.t
, ! HI ~JORIE: B. REICHERT
..c-~~~d-,,~//JA,:>'-!A(~
. 1I,\i~'.'f;y tI'.-&r,,'UVI~L7. . ~~:~u'lff~ .r....').
;-
- ,
~.
-~i'
=-;~j,:
_,.r
~t~'
~L
~.,~.
..,
- ;~
~):
~.'
~.
:9:
=.,
-ii
RA" n.O.I~~_ ~,,~:;I'';'.it.';'',~'1'~'(~~~'~:'$, .
Oo...-::;t.<< do, oI-o.:,to~~I~l ."'Oft ..'0. ...~~, ~ "'Ui; o'tie"p. ....oai"i..
pet"lIG al'" carne prno..n, came . . ... '-- ". 'r..:~;r-
.JOYCE 8. ST0WELL
10 ~ I.nown 10 ~ lht- infh...lwl ,It''.('rihtod in ...nd ..ho
u<<ul('(j 1tM: /'....rt'J'nr; inllrumrnl. lnd ackno...1f11r.d tN.1
she Ul"l;lll~ I~r ~Ir\~
&, o./F c.,::fw..1fJ.,
Notary P 1 ic
ltd.!!; Hot,u'Y Is !,")r Joyce B. 5towcll CNL'i
....tn produced a Florida Dri....er.s License
ciS kL.'I1tification.
..u1'....y PllIUC. STAn or rl..O.In'"
.... Ct--......n.' ,.\:1>111''', ~..., .,. I'"'.
-'_I'ln..' ",'&UC~~IllJI'"
STATE 01" NI!:1f .n:~SBY)
p"__ ) 55,
COUlfTY ill" ' - ll"" (I l
On th.~ day of october. 1993,
before.. personally ca.e DAVID H.
BLAUVELT, to .. tnovn to be the
individual 1ee=ibed in end who
~~ecuted the toreqoinq lnatraaent
and .cknovl~9ed. that .be ex.,utad
the .._.
1k0~
KoUry Public
... mice NF'I.scN ....
km..v PIJBlIC OF .~ I!l!$['f
..,., ,~~.mllI E:tTm ~. U. IH!l
.......,.... -_.
WITH Full,. CuW"AII1'1
TIn. No
H8D'. !\SSOCIATES
TO
CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES INC.
....-.. -- - -...........--
f~.l'
fj". Mmru Till,. "U,,,,,," filM",,",
,f.\'nrJorA'
~
?u IlS E.
;;
a
I
3
~
8
s
.
~
~
s
!
>
~
;
/.'!.tf(
.'
,..
MARJORIE 8. R~ICHERT
10 mt knoW!! 10 be 1M indi.tcNaI dntril)cwJ in aart .ho ...."
nr<<...,.d 1M lorecoiac inatrummt. awJ sdmo "'cdp ~ ~. .~., ;.':
.Jho cucutcd Ifw ....... . ~; ..:::~:.
'-. , .._.-.
'. <~~i~
"<~...
~'.
..
':;~"
~ ~r.
.,}",,'
.~c
~..,.
f~
Notary
-..-
'--"--
"'___'.nM
7n '/'{~f't'~,,-.
Pub lie
,"
"'"
:..)
) SS.
C01JNTY OF Sl/FI'OIJ[ . I ,
"
On th.......rday or ROYetl.ber 1993,
betore .. peraorWll v c:a.e H.ARVft II.,.:.: 1.'
BLAUVELT, to.. known to be the, ..!.
indi vidua 1 dellCr ibed in enet _ '. ."
executed the tor8lJolng' ins_el ;,'.:;,"
and OCknavledqed~tb.t exllCUt.... UI!''-;"7~
...e. ..,', I ..~,.,'"
. 1': "V .,.. .~<.,: :.
Vl..~! _=.~~ ',''''
lto~ ..~; ~~ .
',,' ,
TIKIIA ..~ ;~'I;t.:
___..__ -'l '. i~'
....Ol"'__~.;., i..;~'l."
r' ',.1".
Ct...J_' . ~~~~1 '~':~"
, ,;' ...:".
__________ ___n____ "tl
. ',.;:.I
'~.~;J
'~'";lS~ :~~
'~
STATE 01" HIlli yon
'I..
SKn'"
IUIa
lOT
COUfllT1' C* TOWN
lt~,,,tltfool......t,.,
Ant...--... n.l_ eo.,...,"''''' y-,
........ n M&II. '1'00 . . ". ~ ~
GRUSKIN & GRUSKIN
RICHARD ~. GRUSKIN. ISO~,_
56 HUKTINGTCN STREET
NEW LONDON CT 06320
.....
Dc K.,o r Pu.IJL/sd
, J~
;:7':7::::~~:~:;-~.i~~~..~~'~' ~--;:-~~~;~~ ~~~~;..~?~~-
pcno,..lfy arIK . pnlOtMll, ~ . -. '
.JOYCE B. STOWEL MARJORIE B. Rt:I.. . _ J~~
to m. I.n"..." 10 t.c Ihe ino1i",,/\.lal <lrw-ritwd 1ft ind who 10 mt known ".I be the indlyid,.;J dncribco.l ill and .....;'b'~.
c,...nll~1 1M ',,'..(UII'l; inJtrumcnl, aod adlno..-1roir--d lhal ex<<._.ard lhe ru~nc iruln,anml. anoi &dt.oo-~ ""';-;:f~'.,
sh..' u,-Nl('(j II-e .arne. she C'Jt<<Utl'd lhe IoUIM. - I ~::f~,_;
.J :'~~~.
. ~ ,,.. , .'. ~ j~r.~
7,/ J"""'f4\'.;\...'" . '-'_(')'>~~
P4Dltc -- - ".::;:r.
.." "I
rr.
.:~;;;
f\\', o.~ c ::ft.J}tJ .,
NOLI ry!-' lie
\Li.~; IClt,l(""j i~ f,lr Joyce 8. Sto....ell Ql./LY
'<fl)) producP.d ,1 F1Clridn Dr.!,Yer's License
dS l\.L'tltif lci.H. ion.
!'fOTM" I'\IRJC. STAn;. 0" ,U>.In..
...~Ift'lf.ll:r'..."~I'C_I...I'"'-
__ .....""'... rt.'aUC ~"Il.ll&a.
.0",(
NOtary
-..-
a__..__
____7,11M
1k ~Ju.-
Hotary Public
... miCE NF1.50N -
HClAllY PII8lIC Of "lW JlRS['/
VT l'~SWIIl (l1IftS /i,DY. U. I"'"
:-
. )
) 55.
CODNTY OF SUFPOLI ' )
On th........~day of fIo-eIlber 1993, :<
betore me peraonjllv ca.e HARVET a~
BLAUVELT, to _ known to be the
individual d..cribed in and DO ' ..
executed tho torec;oing' 1ns~1 ',\:"
and aclaloWloclqod thee oxocatod tliiil' 'c.;:.
e..8. -, ,.rci,.;./1-"
,vi.
.';(
STATE OF HI!W JI!:R5BY)
) 55.
COllllTY "F ' &lr<-. e (\ )
C
On th.-'f*' day ot october, 199],
before.. personally c... DAVID H.
BLAUVELT, to .. known to be the
individual ~e.cribed In and who
,",ecuted the toreqoinq inatrumant
and acknovledqed that be executed
the .._.
STATB OF lIBIi YOIIX
"0
- .'.j
---,,--,.)
....07 IQ a "'c-.r.:
c:...._ __ft.la.:t'r',
WonnIp lItd--n.
W,", FUlL C.:.VI.U....-n
""no.
OLGa
,....
COlIfIf'I"Y 01. TOWN
:.-....-:..-~
T1ruNo
HOB . .\SSOCIATES
10
CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES INC.
!l~"""A1Rc-q""'I('O'
FhI A__n Tl..I_CO.....~.".... yort.
..",... n M.UI. 'to
,,--- -- - -...........---
t~h
fin! A""r;l"m. Till,. h.AaN"," fllltptrll"
rt(.\,..tt }O,.,t
~
CRUSKIN a GRUSKIN
RICHARD. E. GRUSKIll. ESQ...-.
S6 HUN.IllGTON STREET
NEW cONDON CT 06320
.......
},,= flS c
!>o 001 Pu/3L/Sr!
ii
5
I
S
.
8
s
,
I
9
.
!
;
~
;
J.
I-"-Ii . J~
.::..
H-
'''if
'1.-
_ ~J ~~
~ ~ lby 0' Fchru<1r'/ . IUMtC"O:1I bllflll~ and -,e.-at t" - ~"Ye;"1
IlEW LONuQ:' FREIGiIT "U;ES. I1'C.,. a i;.N York corporat~.;" _
ita office at (No Number) Dock Road, Orient, Nev . ...\j'~:I~'(;~.~
, : '\:+tF-
; : ,:'~ i :;.!~
:;:\/;;.~~:..
CR03S ~Our:D FEFRY SF.RVICS. I~C.. a Connecttcut":',;".<;!; ,.}t.~
.~F
3C 2 Water Street, New London, Conneet ':It'~:~f~'
..1'. 'l'i'~':I(~I;f:"",
l l" ~ .~.
:Pl 'j.!i;lW-
. I .""'I'.,J~,; I>:
:1 ~ ,. i"Z,M=;" r
"I-~ 1 ~!~~"t~:-oM:
",.';;l.':\:"-
....t;~~\:::-F
,,',;{'i\! .
._." ;~, ~:,..... :,0
_:.t''J.; :.....
""":" '.;i '.
_:: ~J f:;~~
bf 1M lMrt1 of 1M- Jf"("Ollld {"'ft. '......, ~..rdw ,nr: ~".: ~r1..~... unto lhe pan,. or the M"f"DI1d part. the Itcin......,r,:;;j',': -
.. 'it~~
. .. . >!~'1t~I': -
im~ tWreon~~_~. .~
~,. PP-t T.rrpP'If'fft. 1'~ Jfi !4~1,l.:~;~ji~1f' '
,.>.'...,hFoo...".
io:'{"f :,;
Sl.1trou.{ii~~}t~~~ :==
, ",\C"iili~
RIder A hereto.::~';.. '~ :::-_
J '.~. =-
.1:~I::~~~~~
{;'l"'.:'''-f!"b~~
" ';.;';';~~~=-
, '.<f .'i.&:
,~~ (. ~ '!Jii:ii
" :.,,4~.:i"'.
~l f C ~...:Jl:\ ==-
~~~,~~.~
~:i.~~~,;:t!1;
!!"}~"'~,~~
l~ "."~~~
';i.
.~,~
""-
com",,, YOUR .....wn. 0110"' "GN'HG IHIS 1..hU1JMf"'_'"I~ INuaUM'N' 'HOULD.. UUD.. LA...,... ~..
.j..o,".
. ,.
. . ,
<,
,
, .
:': 1____
~dWS#("ftftdJ.III1.
Wl"TNmmt. ltut th" pan,. of I"" tim j~fl.
I
in (o:1.j,ll'r.uiol1 of ten dollars_
IltwfuI monry of lh" Fnj,ro.J SI:lIlt..
IIto'. ...n 'Utll ....it:n.. at t!':t' f"'.:lM:r ,'f IIv. ,<"('(.n,! !nr: i"rt~l'r.
:-'lL1t.t ,~n!ino rIot. ri....:r or p.ue.lu( bnd. ',ilh I~le hllilt.lilll:s and
I.{ :
'~.-c ..... lotinr In I~
1':' ,
Br~4Imlll. . R~
b~~ty J
1<,,1 '.
". I'
I,,^ 1
':,j:
. i .~
!::
I:'
;.
~! ...
I:
,
,
,:.
.,
t"Ull"fi9flM...~d 'rlllA"
and ~~ Orie' t rolnt.
1n the Town or Southold,
New Yorl-:.. a:l mC'!''';! pi\:-t.~.::ul<:i.:"ly dE.'f;crlbed on
-
. ~ -.:-.
.,. ..
,.'....--
"IIL
f~
.~
"[F
~~
~
--
/ \\ \.
:!.".l j' 1.',01
1 tOr, d
',if.- ':....
f:. i ~;.. ...
/
../'
~ : '! 0
~ '/'1 ~~'.;:"l; ~..~~~~. ,~~ ",~ y -: ~ :~-:-"""-~
~If "lIi...
::~ 'qli:
.r,-.,';
I Y'"~"
:'~.!-.~~~
J-....,
\". ,:.- :~,. .;.,
~ --,-:',"
~, . "~~~i::
"'''i.
II:! .'~ \<<',7'8Z7 IIU.
P':i\ .'
:ll~,~ ~i~.:! I,;;
i'. f't I
.1(- "-:';::.:: '
" , r.,'"el1:
.'~:,.,:;I,:.-t.hor ~lt!IA31111thl':t C'crta.':'n tr,lct or parcel 0:-
n D'. .. :r.:prcv'''.no. .r..t.~ lhcroon,
'1
,
'.f;: i
:tl'\f ,/
-i",1';'
'",;r"',t,,1
~ ,',: ,::
l,' ;'rI
~'i'W 1
:/f+
"11;' .\
, ":
::.';'
',';
',~~ :
':.
1;...,\
~; .
I
I
I
~~
-
RrOEl! ,;
ll;,;iCiTYl
PGe:l i'01 I
IoliCROflu.t
"
~i
,Rt Jr1cnt Po1nt, 1n the Town 0: Zouthold, County or Surr~1Jc
~~:d ~...'" ~ "f '!'".,~ v'~!'~. "l~"! ~I"'II"-J"'--! r"O:"';~~:"l:, by ':'1~ Yo! -'1.
willy. C-'l;tcrlj" . i l"H~j ~c:-;-,~:"l:.' of D.:lv1d Welch, southerly
t':y t!". !lilY .l\r,.1 ~c3tI('J':Y b,'1 tt;c lclnj formerly or David
W'e-l::"l. l'!l!: P~~':" (~ :;'J~.1 t;~!.~..: "!'!g~-:~er: (la, fee: t.n
lhe l!tntt:-I' lcr.gth (f'om th!' lI~A:~l\oil'lY i..o the Bay. Jr'!
I.j
A!.SO, till grLntor's r'!&ht, tItle and Intt'~"'lIt
tn t~d la th~: cert~ln ~lcc!, O~ p3rcel of land unde~~ .he
waters t:;.f lhl'r!lr~""ro:l tl,:. !n frtl'j": of !lnd
ror~.'-'ri~o ',)1" e"''':d "';"'1 'tl, In ~ll t:1:"":1 of
COUIl'..Y. :1...... '{orOlt, dc:.'-:rlt(.'d <1:1 follO\u: COrnDenc':'ng at
po1nt Qn th~ 11n~ of hJ~~ .~~e~ nnrk as the said
)11.:'1 'N,lt
t;',.
.~ J. ~
"I'.~:J('nl tj!l':.~,
':t1d poInt or
~C!"":""':~~~~"'i,~ h~~~: O'
.~"'l: :,L'~ ~~ !-':-:'y corlle-r- OJ!" th!' S,lJ.lcJ
u~':'.'\r:J :.:,.1 !"j"l:l ~,~~~':l~ ;'~::,r. ~~_, ~:)""'er cr rlum Islan,j
:'~F:1l:; ,'kU::i~ tCJ:"~' ~~;',,:~; ~.~~ ~'.!;: =tr..~ tha: cf GarcUners
Z::l.o.nd !.!r;ht lk'.;t:e !:..;:tr= ':;:'I;";~ 55-1/20 ca~t,
tho:!;',:C' (.1'1 a C'1):J:'~f' ~;(:l:';l :<.. ~lr-t !".lve hundrp;j (SOD) .r~et~'
thf'!\,~t~ S<)lJth :lG'" ~w:;': ~!;t',:!, hUlft:"pd tl"'enty C32C) re~tt
thCr.~'1 tlt-'rlr, Ilet) ;':C'~t f1\.... h'lndred (500) feet. thence
!'l ~c::.J; : r,/., :';! 1: 1 ~ C'" 'J f L: '::1 ~.::'.">~:. :l;'l rk 1!crt h 5' 00 f.'ll!t.
~ f. :'" .
, ! '.
';
" :'."0 t hr.
'J!" b~f:~n('.!:1I'
P: :1'('
c('nt.I':;: /; '; lIn','" ... :..1 :; 1 ~ !Ii~. I" j :ft.'".'enl ::-Ul:-~'C 0rj~-lhuoJ.I'Ir.ut.).J
~.~r,':: :Jr :,n! I:I:!,:' .-n:,"t',
i~::~, ~;:: :. h(' ,,,., ;-:~
pr<,.'r:1;>~'lJ
c"n',"'j.''''1 !"y I!" i e :rJc- ,,:, tll',' ::: !:;C' rf ::......,
't(-':.~: tc :-"l'/~~!
:.\ .' I .. ~, ',I
"""',-::'1' :11 :~: ;., :.(, :.'t'!/'nt Pc.l1nt.
~.'~.'r," COl"':p,ny)
t'y ,.
!' " ... ,h f .-~ ~ t.. ,,'. :'! f ,I ~:: "!,, ,r II; :,..
1'3)) :;'~d rf'~or:h>d
lr; !
"
"I' : ..'; ,~r ','. (' c; ::..:t
y, ,':
,1:
, .' r'r! '~ I':~:: .- ':. r~! .; -', .!
".., r,":'"
.1;
.
'~;Ii , .
...,j.~ : ' .79
r 'I\i. l~ 7827 IWn
l~t::i~:lii:i!l'i
'1':fM'11'1
'.; . 'II ",
~~f~.;!1 1,\ ;.'r.d b.y or:::':'" ^,::' r:m::;'..,:D ro UE the ..". pror.;he.
~,,!;t':':;""I:t,'~',.'1 ': ::. <<::~;:~k b;o,::: :.~:::' :u:~;:c:. o~9::;u::c:::e:9:~
~\:;:;M~~!i.' h ttbf!'r 21112 or 1;~p.d~ :\t l'a..-:e 51J. .q.~:1
h ,:~,ii)~.
t':T,~T '\
I ",""
. {;,:'Ip'
;r,';;\';l\
rt ;')::~
;:1'1', "1
:-1
;'
, , .11 ,:
;,. ,:
_ ,.."1:"_
~1 ,'~ "
. ~f .
. '
. ,J", .
;
.j
'I"
.
, i+l.
I
I'
=
LC"!~~!~\r{
PG.~':~ l :.:r~
t\.ICROFILM
2
,;'1.
1;,'
~:'1
P::L:-CC': J;
All thlt c~~t~~n pl~t, p12ce or pareel ~~
"'llll th,' bullJlnr. ::1nd J'1\~'I'O'/i:Of:'..~:':.t.3 thereon
lytn~ nr.rl
:;out.holJ, .. ;';Jnty of $uf:-clk .Hld Sta~e ...If New York,
.nd J~"'~1'11'~1 ~$ r~llc~~:
p-!.:nlm:~~:-i
f"-' l::'
It a
on the svutherly side
)~l' 111 Ho.ull
i;'"!llt e
'_.J.
....h.~ r'~ :la~:!' 1 s
~rQ:'-:-I'~.i' l~l:r.' of ~ r~<:~!:t ,)r ~.,~:'. which runs ~ro::
Hn'\:1 ',," u~'~l'n': !".'':':'l~ ~n.-':i:,
r')I'~'''["ly l'I"'I..\J.-,'.1 1.11 i; t:..>!~ :":;1l1:"'.-~ ~~'Wt:.:~ along sa~d
Wl':lt~:'l,.i Une ~r 3010;\ ;'l;:-.t ~r ",at::, south 2(;0 ~7t 20" East
5;).)} !''l''J~ :i. dIe- hl~:l :':,1.lf~r r:'u'k of IJardl::e."s BaYi
In'''',.1t' <I!Qr.t'" ~1~.-1 h!-:-h ...,~tt:"l" l!1f'rk cor ;]ard1ne:"~ 8ay.
5..utll =30 ,__"f c.o" ~':'.'S': 13J.!;7 feet co land now Or'
rur:'":(~l'ly of ':'Irv"!y II. D]:w'Icl",; the'lce :J.long 88.1<: ~end
1",... ~"'nt lC'n~ I ao. ,"1" 07' ,'0'1 '.oi(:-:;t 5(j6,8~ feet through
A C~"..::',=,!., - '!:';:~'.'P:" I." <1 cC;~:!"~lc mcn:l::':f'nt on 31\1<\
,
I'. ~ ;.' \': '; ~! .' 0:' _"
tt~~n~~ alonG ~~1~ south~rlr
:'!l:'
'-,-1.
"',
1 ~ .
I. :
.'.CO ;'1
~ .. !.
10" E. 71.11. !'c"'''. ..-.
tl.l" r"':-','
'c': '. "
..
';0\,;;-:,\;..:.> ,.t.,:
:.h:" r~'~!I:. tt".;e ,~~.01 !n:~r'~":
-~ -; :
(,,, 01" j:"l:"::. -;' rl"I~;Ir-:, ~:'. ~~~ In;~ ".0 ~,l:,:, l:;r.-: tI:1rt'l"t' thl'
""..' rr :1
or
! t ~: I
..'..
,...
',,!.l
!r.:'
'I';
. .~.':.I p :'!':~ ~ ;:r- t'
"'n n:e
:':'.":
~, I
....1rl.
.::' L '1. i
..:,. .'
<. I ~ ~,' :\IIfl inl Ct'~;.t
c:' t I.,'
. !' ~ .
'i
, " \:: t:~~ f.~' lh." t'n.,l_.."...
"
.'t't
:' ~ .1.' .
"
I')
;.;-
;,.=-
:Jl-
"'=-
.~'-\JI
-<
")' v
o
\0
CIST.
rooo
SEC.
om.
nu.
~
LOTS
0(:1. I"
.11 y. ,~ ,
Of (, QI'
,
j
)
\
,
'.
- It-.' Jl,,,,,--,-''''"I,,,,,"u_'''~' ' ,
""'''_ .."'. /I ~I ~ ........""" "i" -
",'.I~' -_.- ,._, ----'-"'-~:-.:L._._&.-- -- ,.----=
TTCMIlLAWYeIllrO'2I....... :...._...-MW'I'- .........._WLAWftlSe'ftt ~.;)" .~o
_____ . __ ,0,.;:_' '.-
mlllMDfJf11,JIU"... """I", ,'e 29tJl ..b,. of Sep~r ,,,Pwt"'" h.."cir....hnJ. t!ii9ht:r-thS.e.ir
813,tJ;
PETER ~ATHAIlSON, residirq at 580 Plum IshHd IAn.., orient, lie" I' <kl:;:',1
119511 .t~...
(\~E~
~\' /1. ~
" ;.,'
':,:r ~
l":i1.
! "
-.J'!',
"
~-----~ -~~-
~~ ~I~~ ~
WD'"ESSETH. that lhe' $MrtY of Ill<' fir,! part. in C'tIftllMnritWt of '"' OC>lbot"ll anci othn- n"'bk ftML.~ ::.
paid bJ dw p."lrty nf 1M J<<nnd part. dor'. ;te'TC'by rrant .And ~1('lIIS(' ,.nIO 1~ pany of thc: JoCCOP't P""; 1M haft -.{ if'"
Of' su<<nJOfS and "nips of the part~ of the sn'f'll~ part 1000000C'f, . '1:-
ALL thac ~rtaj" ,,&ol. ~ ~f parcel ~f :.and. .ith 11,(' buildinCI .aNi improvmwnu t~.-wrr crened., ...... ",'1 :
l'Iint: and br1nc'" at Qri.ent ?oint, 'l\:W\ of Salthold, O:mtty of 9JffolJt, and s=ate cr.,,: IT
1 New Yode.. .X1lI1ded and described as 'oU""'" ' U
PAJI:]!L I " ,J
IllB:iIMIlNJ at the oc=er f=- by the '.n~ of tile _terly ..;.de of ~ tifmm ';~
\ foot U.S.A. E>l~ and tho ""tMrly side do land now cr _lyof G.E. ard .I!:;
8.D. Latt\llm; rum1rq thenoe al_ ...id westerly bide a:. said lS-fcot O.S.A. .,......
I _to SWth 19' sa' 40' E>lSt 465.00 teet to e point> th"""e SWth J9' 00' """"10 :?'
76 teet to land of the State do ..... VoD<, _ al_ said land ~ 26' 33' 21]' ,~
I ....... 280.00 fee1; to the SW':herly side do land now cr f""",""ly of Hc:I)::mel1, --- i; ~
I' u..ooq aid lard, now or foorerly of M:::D::Jnrr~1, Ncxth 63'" 2l!it 40. Mest. 3<4.0 feet 4;!) ~:: F
1 New lode. Stal:C 1'akinq Line. ,-- al_ said line, the foll0ri.n9 """ cn:r.oe& - ;.
distarr::eS : .~' j;
~ (1) Ha<th ~6' 1)' 20' West 62.00 feet to a point, and ,.'~
(2) Nurth _6' 33' 20" ,. .t 201.07 feet !:o land of G.E. and B.D. 1&&.... ;Pf
'l1II!K'E al_ said lJUYl .. toUo.r..nq three cxurseo and dUt:anceS. ;g
I (1) _ 75' 55' 40" East 35.60, ~'(~
(21 :Jwth 13" 49' 10' East 14.00 t..-t, "f~
I ~~ 76' 26' 40' E::>st 68.00 teet: to the ""i.~t cr pla"" of lIBmMlC, ?~
I es:;XIflIl-C at a ,xdnt a> the "",,_ly oarner of the _sc:rihed!U'fllll!- "'~
and rornint t;henOe SWth U' 58' 40' _, slxut 125 teet to the ordinarY Iw#> ,~
.....b:::r in!Irlt \Jf C.ardJ,ner', Bay~ rurninIJ t:ben:e in oS scuthwestJl:.rl Y direct.icn. al.crq tba::~
QZTii"l&r)' high 'foIClOer wan of Gar::1J,nBr's Bay, ab:11t 65 feet to a point, rum1rq tbeal;a;;Ei..
Nc1"th 26'" 13' 20- We:Bt, atcut. 100 feet to tl1e ~It:hwest:erlv caner of the.to.re- ,~:~...
llescribcrl pn 'r.~ 3e81 and . .l~a
1UiE1HER wrm all right, tit.ll! ani intet'PSt in qmnbX hm'ein in ~ to G;s:rdi.nlK's >~~
!lily and _ l00nds urdeJ: the ...""" _-.of odieoent to the said pro!II\is<'9. ,[~
BmC NIl n~ '10 BE the .... prniees caM!'JEld to the perty of "lP. n<'<. p.rt -.'i~
~ t>>er:I dated 3/-/79 ond .~dbd 8/23/79 in the 94t;llk O>.'nty eJ.,,-k'" C1:'ioo In '~I!f.
Liller 8681, _ 365. . 'U~
TOGETHER ..lh "II ~i(hl. litk- aM intc,",. if MI. of t,M pArty of II:! lirll 5"4'1. In 1~ In ~n~. !'tno,"' and ."'~
road, .bultlnl ttlt' "bow" fks.cnhr-d ~mn1M11a lhe entl'" hnc10 th'C"rco'; . OGf.TH EN ..."!'ll.... a,..,..r'I~~ ..:.n=E.
",d j1jd the nult' and ",hI' of 1M part1 o. Iht Ii.... p"rt in Anc.II~ ~id p:.nri.n; TO H." \"E ....SD ":'0 ":~_:..':<<!::
H01.O the: pl'ftf.._ ~>ttT1n (nnlN untn I.... partl 0' IIw !'<<"ond ,..rt, thr h~'.."" I"'U'.......,. ~nU .tS~ 0' '.' . .'
I~ pan:r 01 Iht' ~ pan In,.....'" ''>2-~
'J~
;;~
~i:~
'~F
~i
:~..~
.,~
'I
"\~
~I
,f!"
rl
II~
~r of 1tH! Ani part, ~
CROSS-501.~O fERRY SERVICES INC., a connecticut corporation wi th
,ffices at ~l~ London, Conne.cticut (2 ~ street),
".
"'SO Ihr JMny 0' lh" lint JNr1 co'-t'~nl' thac dlt' r,,,rt.. o' rht' hrst pIn ~~, not tkllw I)f ~uP'rrd .n~..hiroc
",",n'by thl' ..."io1 pf?ff';sn, ~".. bc'..n f"'K\,mbr...d in ~"y way ...hall'v..r. ,.no'" I" ..lM'....i(l
ANO ttK- r--r1y. f lhto fI,-1 pu1, on tomrliat>C"r with $<<lion. IJ vf 1M I.i,m u.',u)'\.rnant, Ih""l the- IM1rr of
the- fin' ral1 w,11 rTn'i., tM n:~.....k,.ltnft !M thi) (OfI\"f':,afKl' an<l ".in htIId I,,", n(hl H. 'Tf":\'f' ~ ~
CU,IK'ft ~.. " n-,", f...d kt '... .Pf'4If.,t ftto,,1 fo' IN J>U'J'O~ nC p.lvinc 'hr '...., of lh... *""p........'''''''''"1 anti .'111 apply
IhI:' ,"-rw- '''~t 1(' ''W r-rm"'" .., lhc l"(>t.I "f 1M ''"P''(>H'~.," nl bw-fnfY u""'1l: III:" ""rt...1 1M I..ul ('If ~M!IlIrtW' (or
,":' olM-r vurJ"O' '1".
The- .-.wd ".......,," shan be- conH(Ut'o1 n if il rnd ..p-I1w-.... ..hrPf'n'1 lhol' ...,..... oi thi. ,nd1'ntp~ ,. JT1Gi,-,.
IPI WJ11fr1! WHEAEOf'.IM part1 ot \:w finl..rt lR.. dulr rx~ Ihi~ dos-.l :hf' dlY and .'C'Jir fiB( alIuft
_nU"'''.
.'
I" ...~'!\.C.a:~. RECf.'~ - .
/... ,---- ~
S...-----
l:]R:rl ~ST~rE
, TRA"rrl1 1...<
~'JF'dl:"
~ CO....;jlY
,
~,~ -
I F'Eh._ NATHAN SOU
6133
.~ ~.....
, !";k,.!!F
j::"'l":j'\E"
" ~f~ 'I~ ~-:
.11 ' '(,
.,,' I,:
',': '~-,'l'::~ .i. ",=-
UEliij '\~:D li;:-f.:la=::. 70 f'~. the f~r.l~ prftl.!"4!'1 ';:Je:,_. ':-;l"j:,.~.,::
vey~d by 00:"1 ;~l:H1y:] Ccax to gr~ntor. b7 deN dat.d.':i .;,;;i!~'<:I:~~;'_
2nd, 195;, r-:conJe-d 1:\ Llt:er ~021 or d..d..::~r '::.1~:~:1~;~"'~t'::"'~=-
I . ~~ ~--'~F.-r
th~ Sur:olk C.")unty Cle!'k's Crrtce on l'fo.....1"' lit.;" f~~~~:~
:'~'-~'.!::.: jr~iI-
. !;;~:;t;j~'~~-~
...!,.,,~~
'.'i';:;;1i:J.il!
~h\t:~:.~!~_
".."~-
.:;r-;i",~
...~.~
"1.--
"::-~
'/ ,~~~
.:;-:~':,_:~~-
'~~~;*-
,1["t!'rtg ~-
~ "",
,~'1i
..:,~.:t&
. ,: Il......m:
: rt ~-
"',5 ;
...~.
"S\~ . .-
j ~ili.lC ' ,~
,f ~>+~~ .w,~
'~';i~: l{~r.; ~
"',.';.,'Iif:'
.>~
ILEG1!!lLrN
PO:e: FOil
r.liC:lOF\L~
I ~...
,
I
I';
.1 !
~
-,
~ ! 1
.~< ':..,!.t::"--r.~,~,~.~,."",~....,tn.-
, ~,':?':~j~;:~; !}~,:_;l~'i:~ ~,~i,,< '.."." _i:
.v;~",:,...
..y~,,,,,.t"'lW,...,,,.1 ""'" ~~ ;1'-~ ' ~ Ii
::'.F"'~',oo"""~"t:,., 't.'''''..' . "-"it...,l{:.-::l1~.,' ';.'~.'~'l..' .'.
'. ' "l::l\;'" '~.~,:'"1,~P:',kl,"" ,',
,,' " .." H", .. f"', 11', ,,"! '; ~.~, , ...'l'H. ".....
~.._T,,......l
.'
"
,
l,'!'<~
-: :', '~-_ n.
. ~ :r: Ii~
, , :t:'
::':Y~;'
'l:.l
It1"
J'l~
'''"r&
f~ ,-
~ -~.i.,: ,_
'I.ft,,_
,"'=
j-::/
"I~
..
..'.1 ',#il,' -
: ~i d,lr,.
''''
TOG~'ER ..-i"'.Il1 ri,hl.lillr ~I..I illlUhl. " .II"~. flf ,fI.. ,.."... ...Ilt~ i,. pan....... _........ ...~~~'W=-
:~ ;lbul1i", the d.lO'<'e dCKnbcd I'runi~. to ltw an...r : ~ tborrea(. " I ';'.' ~ ~ ._
"f
TOCI:11.ER "llh 1M- ;t.1"'I'urlnral trt .an.( .1111 lie "".u~ a",1 ,ipu .,,( Itw ""' ... u. '"- ..... ... ...... ^'~
. "l;~~
II prmllJol':l. 1'/ ":l~~
' 10 HA. VE AND 1'0 HOLD the prenu~. hc-mn .'f'Uftd .... dw p.rIJ' ., .. ...... ~ .. ... ~~----:-
~uon~ uli<<".. ill It;.; ~(l) o{ 1:<< .a;.....J ....11 '...c...cr'A1~::
· ''''1~
' '~rl~'l:~
.' IJ'I'--
/ .,-"'-
,'::r :-
~i~,tj
.\~;j:';,~
.~,.,J5,
.'j;'1'>'t~
:.t:.:.t.....,"'~
.:~ :-:I,j;"~
~"-," /1-
;,'lti;
-'~ .,,"=-
:-,_fl:~
.)'ol,
,-.
.,
.i
~ .::~"
I" I !;A:~ ~
~.';.l ,:;,-'~!!';}.
~ ' :t ;I"f": - 'u:
,...(,.l:"~:'~'l''il~.
"", F).~ ~,<L"
t~;.. ~
'~{:i
'>.tii"t '...
r'~j: i;"-
,~
> t:,r:1-
AND che- ~rlr ,..: :'w finl pan co\rn.llnu lh..lt Ihl!' f'lrtT of Itw fir'/ot r-" hat ~.ot .... _ ....".. ~ tri{, ,,~_
whtr:-br Iht \aid rrnni"", hay.. ""'("II in.-uml...,t"1 in ,In" .~r .~t"""". ....t1'f" .. ~ : .~'. r~ ''!iE
AHD ,'" rmy o' ,." ,;.,' ,'m. '0 """.,;.,,,.., ";,, ;""";"0 l.l '" ".1.... 'A_. _.... eN _of 'I~.t
1M ri".t 1\&" wtll fn't'1"t' t..... mn'l.IC'r:iCi. n "'r th., (O,n-nan(T lIn.1 WI" ~ the ..... It ftIlDft....,..-..;, i;" <~
nal'Ktn;u.:a trll~t IlIfI.l 10 l>e> :lJ"fliC'<1 fir<t i.., lilt' l"I~f"'~" ~f r-~ri:"f: l~ ~ ~ ,.... ;-., _ ~~._...: ...'......r..ll'l'~,rt~
, . f~ ~
1M "'''''" "'~t tn It,..'....\T1'.."'t nf ll>t' (<l'l ,,( lh- i'nrrl'w' 'r.:: too:ofJI'T 'CU"" :lAY pL." oI'..........f .'_...... ~:~. r'
.~ I I' ""~i...r.u
""yl.I....ff"Ii"f'C'.... I . 'fj.d~'
. r,' l,~ j.or._
~ ...MI! "I'",n~'" )11.111,.. ('nn~t:"cd .\~ if;. rrl,I-:.~'II~~- "!w-IWY1T'hr .('n....,(!?tit.......... _ ,...,...'r-t<'kW'-
IN WrrNr.ss WIIFJlF.OF. ,h' "'''''., II" I,,,. I I- .,.. .',:. ..~"'"\ ,h', ...... .'- <.y -' ,... .......... ::Cl
."~ftL I; 1~. ;1,1;;.:I:iIl
.' ,!( r ji'G:"
lilI:.......u<T. or: " ~.:t' ~
~. .~~!.~
".-,- J;,"'rt~"'I_'~'I] .!q;i~
.bai~d; . .... . 1775 .. ~
;7:~~;~~~;:.~.;'e' ~'~ ;~",: IlfW 10'lr 'I m:T~!'T tIHU. lwa'rrl~
'.1/ /j-'-" //./'i-'-. >,/ ,,"'~L " '..~[:ilt
L .......... /.4-1~_-.J-;..L;~.'t!~ ._-~~" Py I .....~""4..-: t~ ~~_ ~'XIf1~-
,:_. I)..... ;,1 ;1\_
"t f!~
'~
~
I"'~~' i rl~ ".. ""'. YOU'. COVNTl' ~
I ',',.)". I ~
;qo ... . I "', 0/
1 'i-i~,;rl""'i .
, ~'l.~;~.t.'be thto illfb-.id..al ~ in"...._he
........ I'" fon-roinc _1~W1M. .....1 adolOwltdpf ....
.j '.-:--~',;~t-
t; .::;,'~.,:
,.:H(,l!in
""J'll '
~:f";:.'!;;'1
~'. (~IC! .'
:.~" "I.,.", Of.... TOn. eouwn Oft ,. 4 Torlil. _ n..." OIl.......... c....,_
~:~!;l6.luJiiard .,. 01 Fcbruarr (Qj5. ....fnn "'. 1(, ..... ...,... . .......~.~
~..!', 'I~J",n_ JlUDC~ P. Kc\111!1tec 'tl l"'hO,'I, ~ I . ~
,t .~-~... ,..ho.""~!~fN'''''I"...n,,.dooJ'''':...~........1 "'"~''''_''.''''''' ~o-.;'-'-""'_---''''''''''''''!--..
::-1:.,duo(,,~hl-rnidC",UNu.. 181St.,.tortt-"..... ..'I~ -................. II l!l"tl!t~.
\>,IStbford.. Connecticut; IJ
~t"wf1" ',..... .'it" Vice PrE'sidcnr. .:;,.... two l-,. .... :! '
'00; :l.~;New: Lbadon rrl!'l~ht.lt.J.~~("-!__~'....,11 ." ...
. '.t.icti MlfC'"~ I~ f~ rn"t'l:mntf: Ihl ""' I '" .,...t ,,"...-4Il u........t ,................ .....J,.....
~~, d;te tbl CJI ~1i4 C""1"J"On.1~: IMI :!'W _I ~"I.....I \.,.,.._ 1"'" waI .II( .... ~........--..; , .. ....~ ...'1'(
.. .ilI,.-n1lM'nC It "K"h cnqV"rJlr _I; ltut, 'f .n'" ...!..... ~..t '"~.~ .. .." -.......... ... .,__
hf oNn 01 l'w houd of .h,~,.,." of u"I",1"JI'M" I . r,..... ..... "",t..r ... ,"'" ....... .. ....-. "" ... .......
" ... that hi l:pN htHD3IM thMUQ .,., like onin.j It...., and d.e ......-.4.. _ __., ........~
' 'I'.'. ,.i'j" 'I '" . , \J"t, I'
~*:lt;!~h:r-: :11 ..i1w'i' -/<l;;', ;'i,,_ " J~~f~'
" ::;~'i r;,;~-~;~'" . '" ".0.~ 'f'~\ '",
"'~: ',," I t.,t:.., V , ':' J II!'.' 1
:; _:;'.:' ...~,:'. .: ('0""" ' ~' -:. . !r"tt.~!I'
~kIJ<.,'i:':-.1 . . "~'._' ."'4.........., ,,''''':."':. ,I .~, j' ,'If' 'I~=--
J""'" 'I .\,['.,...
" 1'1.'" , J ''''.,...
./tl,j.;......,;. a". hr. lll... .<>.... . : ,j ;l~'i'i"-=-;;.
"- ~,"!W~lt.~tI\Wl.Nf^l"'N.I{.."I.... ".'. :;i ~"II~..'a~
1hi~.....l:"'r'.' " ...." I 'I "l,u:. ,~
~ lot I~,! l,~ f~ ~ ~-
,:.r":, .:' ,I ..-..,.__ ..1~:I:II.i~1
FREI:1h"T infES, INC. \ l;flA....
I. ',l""!'
t .' '.I- I"'
\ :' :,1 ~ '. _
---.. --.-.. ....-..................'" (
SE?:'dCE, n:c. "h\-
I '. _'_'_~___ ~.. ... .. :~'''..._
~
:<
~ n'.IJPIit.1l: PmS I ~:r
121 ..... --... .... u. n.
-
19
............ ..
~i-. ,I., ..... wi
I....-~~
.
tot _ aa-.. .. .. _ ..........
"'~ ",,_____ .4
-...-
,.
';'
I.
I~......~...;:.;'~.;.'~."""""-~
;"l"!I;;~..
'I.,' ~l;>:'
"~I, "n TTTl.E GU4RANTEE-
U N~'NYORK
..1'W;)fttn..""'....,
......
~
....-
,.-
t't~
t,~
'w._
,''':f~-
.
,
..
.~ -
z- -
~- . --
" :,'
~ .-
N ., -
~ -. =
,
;:::; ~ -
.,.
-
.:-;, c.
lf$,:.,IO\'1,.~,,~<'-~,~.~.~. ~
~'1 f;~....~~I:........,'
.' ~.~~ .~.:,.:~:;~\r,,:: ~~g.r J.t<"
J';';l;' :.~~! ':;.1. 'A~,':""~! O'~
)~I~'.",~ '-.". ";.;t~:" .
~
~'1
~.
-=--:~::
-;';:1"
~[ ;~.
---==.....
~;':\
'::!~':l
-----=;;-:1,.;
---=;,ltr- ~
----c::_,
~'.
--=~ .
1
~,
t:~r.n(37~ '1ot r-
IT'" ....... .~ c.....n _ _OLK ft.
:..';,I"~ 19t.h .hJ' lit .SepLe.mt f '.befo~nw
~r~_llv um.., Pf:.--rEA. NATHAnSGt~,
:.,. w. kr. "...... 1" /..' IhlE' incliv;...n.al
..lun.lnl Ib;: 11>I....ll:".nc MuUVnlcnf.
he !:"J{rt:"l<'t.! lh~ .....,oe
rk-KribN in arlft 'Viol'll)
.nd aduI.,,,kdCood ,tm
~j\-
Notary Publ1.C
A."l.h;:n' " tOHlu.
IIIIOTA.1" p,-"1.Jr. :I..... ...!:"I_ T.n
rb,!02-~'"
~=~~~t~r:~;rl~
i Ollft Of" ... yo... CCMMTY OP
I~ ctw dar of 19 . ~fore ~
pc'r.un.aUy nlIDC'
10 tIW L-nnwn, _tw., ~ t. ..... duI, ,.Dln, did .1iE'p:_ .nd
'-lI1' ~M( tJ.o l't"Ndn..c:-Ou,
Ih.al he- i~ 'he
<!
. tho- rorpo,.,ion drl.cri~
i" J.nrI _h,,-:h ~ It.... ,~ imcnmwnt; m.1 he-
Ill........." lhr on) of AMI corpcwuioa; that atw- ~1I1 "ffiaM
10 W1i<1 inKnIf'fW'IIt "' tudI CTlrponIC' sraI: 'hat it 'Ir.lI1o ....
Iffi"lflt by ordtt .. __ bNrd 01 ii".~ of w.id <<rrpofti"
lton, J:1'td IIW: ~ sipcd tt name tbncro by lilo.c aNkt.
Burgalll anil &alr IJrrll
w"," CC\'CI'I''':U AfM.l"1l GIlAlVTIJf:."' A~
TITU: NO.
Pn"ER NATBAHr'ON
TO
CROSS-;QUND FERRY SERVICBS INC.
-~~
.........,_................. m'.........nlll
DUtnhtft OJ
'1..CAoAiIO ,.........
aJW..U'III.ANC. co.........
j
I ;0 ... .:
~ ? ..
.......~
a ~~ ":':-~
""' I
S '" ... ...
..~
~ '" ... ,;~,a
2 .r::
<.> i"'~
- -, .... ';< .,.
- '" '"
. ..
~ ~
-
!
-
~
-~.. - ----
.In ., .. ..... ...-rr or
On the 0011 o.
j'M'tJQft.lJ1r cwn.
, brlore IK'
.t~
, "..,:
10 nW' bow.. 1 be- 'he nwirid-.I drKribed in &Dd "'-:11' (}',;
rXf"C1lCN t~ .l)f.tPRC i.llnlllMftt.nci KkAowledr,...f ,...', >3t;f.
C1U"C\Ited tM $VX'. .",t'
, l:.;_:i:.
, :~:..:;:t
- --:,~' ,
l:~:'..ii.
,.!;,;'"
...
"AfI' Of .... ~ C04ICt'n 01
..
On the da, 01 ,9 . bclOft.. 'l';~~
::..-~::: .,Iona 10 choe (orCJOiftl iMlnlnWlll. .ita.'_ I ~j ;
whem ( .... penonaU, ~ttd, -hn. ... .., .. ..,. t:' t
''''ON. did dcpoH and ..,. lhat M rniJn at No. '-11' ' ,
; >';"I.,
thai lw 'know .. ".~ 1;
"'J -,t
to he.... ......;A.d:. r -,~:-
dnr.ribetl ill and wft.J o:~ the I~nc ~._~; '.' .~,
tt.c ht...teI ............ ....... we) ~ ...... <'i-:"
~chc.......:.and""'. !tc..............;;..:.t...
.. the IaJnC time ..-nbcd III .... .. ...... themo. ,~,1t:;
:'~
,:""',-;.., .,--
'~1f:1 i1.W;"
"lr'ln~
. _,']v, ~. i~' .
.::.~{~~~..
:}i{'
bni:.\SO ~ I!fURAIlCE Cll.,. ):~
""""" 15 &0/ :.~
9 .;.~~:~
-' ;i'-.i!'
~3 - . ~"V!.,~~
.~ -... ro:' hi
~t"~,l;'~~tf_
".. ! ~~
II.D....
LAn"
. 00U1'CTY 0.. TOT"
Sauthold
...... . ......... ",
ClftCAGO TITI..L n""".-4.rll'"% (:()I'-',u",
r_.,JihIl_
, ,uCHARD I!:. GRUSItIN. ESQ.
GR'n.~K , ~RDSItIN. I!:SQS.
I. S-j auntlngton Street
lfew London, Conn. Qp ....
-
;"
('l63'~
.~. "..
~~
~
''''';.
.__._'._._.f.~_.~ . _._._.___..______~... _ _. .............. __.'~'_____--..
~~~ :32_n}~~~)~r~~::A~~R~IIP-LonQFo'm - ADGRVS -, ~b'lALLSTATELEGALSUPPLYCO
"';;0;; b-18,cr/"Hn ,,," 0' Co'p. . o~''''co O,;vo, C,onfo,d, N. J. 07016
::0 {:~::) '" ~D aff JlOjJfr fil J~Dm \ij$lhrirn& ~ ~mr, ~~~,
00
1. """,'
,.1.1"",,.,
lS1i1l0\l1 ~t. That A.JW, INC" a Connecticut corpotation having its principal place of
.005
business at 2 Fe:rry Street, New London, Connecticut 06320, as Nominee
DISTRICT SECTION BLOCK tOT
UJ2GIJ 1-[fC;rr:l noli? rTT:\rr'l? i '
- L:.2LJQJ LL./LJQ.J U-.::l.1.L.LJ5.1 herein designated as the Reteasor,
no
for "16Il< considero./'ion >i:I{
received to Releo.sor's full satisfaction from John Peter Wronowski
whose ma,:ting address is 2 Ferry Street, New London, CT 06320
herein designated as the Releasees,
does by these pr"sents remise, release and fO'rever Quit-Claim unto the Releasees and unto the survivor of
them and unto ::uch survivor's heirs and assigns forever, all the right, title, 'interest, claim and demand
whatsoever as the Releasor has or ought to have in or to the following described premises:
~
,\
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings
and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at orient,
Town of Southold, county of Suffolk and State of New York, and being
bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a monument set on the northerly line of land now or
formerly of George E. Latham, Jr. and Betsy Latham, at the southeasterly
corner of land now or formerly of Betsy Latham and the southwesterly
corner of land nor or formerly of GEORGE E. LATHAM, Jr.;
RUNNING THENCE along land conveyed or to be conveyed by said
George E. Latham, Jr. and Betsy Latham to George E. Latham, Jr. the
following two courses:
(1) On the extension southerly of the easterly line of said land
now or formerly of Betsy Latham, South 27 degrees 45 minutes 50 seconds
East 330.0 feet; thence
(2) South 48 degrees 08 minutes 10 seconds East 155 feet more or
less to ordinary high water mark of Gardiners Bay;
THENCE southwesterly along said high water mark 230 feet to land
of unknown owner;
THENCE along said land and along land now or formerly of Nathanson
North 34 degrees 23 minutes 40 seconds West 569 feet, more or less;
THENCE continuing along said land now or formerly of Nathanson
the f('llo~ring three courses:
(1) South 62 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds West 68.0 feet;
(2) North 28 degrees 14 minutes 10 seconds West 14.0 feet;
(3) South 61 degrees 30 minutes 40 seconds West 15.5 feet to the
easterly t:erminus of Main Road;
THENCE along said easterly terminus North 30 degrees 15 minutes
o seconds West 16.87 feet to a monument and land of Long Island Lighting
Company;
THENCE along said land of Long Island Lighting Co., land of
William G, Wysocki and said other land now or formerly of Betsy Latham
North 63 degrees 46 minutes 40 seconds East 297.0 feet to the point or
place of BEGINNING.
BEING AND INTENDED to be the same premises conveyed to the grantor
herein by Deed dated November 9, 1978 and recorded in the Suffolk County
Clerk's Office on November 13, 1978 in Liber 8532, page 31.
TOGETHER WITH all right, title and interest in the Grantor, if
any, herein and to Gardiner's Bay and the lands under the waters thereof
adjacent to t~e s~id premises, along with any riparian rights. SUbject
to rights of others over "traveled roads" as shown on attached survey,
and subjeot to dny recorded easem"nts allowing others to use said road. '
SUBJECT TO and reserving a 20 foot Right of Way, for all purposes,
over the northerly side of the subjeot premises in favor of premises
immediately to the north, now or formerly of Betsy Latham and now or
formerly of William G. Wysocki and another. The northerly side of said
right of 'Nay being desoribed as follows:
BEGINNING at a monument at the easterly terminus of Main state
Road (Route 25) which corner marks the intersection of the southwesterly
corner of land of the Long Island Lighting Company where it intersectE
with the IMain State Road (Route 25).
RUNNING THENCE North 63 degrees 46 minutes 40 seconds East 297.
feet to a monument now or former~y of Morris.
\'I~~k
',:,)
RECORDtn
fflUtI f) 1991
~'1)WJ\rro P .I'lOMAlloIf:
CiliIaiK or- ~U'Rli ,I( en MI'1f
-
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------------------x
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Plaintifi;
Index No.
-against-
AFFIDAVIT
CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC.
Defendant.
x
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I have been a member of the Southold Town Planning Board since 1979.
2. I am familiar with the site plan approval for the Orient point ferry terminus of the Cross
Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
3. A tax map of the ferry terminal property is attached as Exhibit A. Cross Sound Ferry
Services Inc. owns parcels numbered 1,2 and 4. Parcell is Lot number 15-09-10.1, which will be
referred to as the "Parking Lot." Parcel 2 is Lot No 15-09-11.1, which houses the ticket offices,
will be referred to as the "Ticket Office Lot." Parcel 4 is Lot No. 15-09-15.1, has a snack bar on it
and will be referred to as the "Snack Bar Lot." Lot 3 is the terminus of Route 25, owned by the
State of New York, and divides Lots I and 2 from Lot 4.
4. The three ferry parcels are currently zoned Mil. The uses permitted in the Mil zone are
set forth in Southold Town Code Section 100-121. A copy of that law is attached as Exhibit E.
This law provides that "ferry terminals" are permitted with a special exception permit from the
Board of Appeals, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. (Section 100-121 [B][2]).
5. Site plan approval was obtained in 1984 for a vehicular ferry operation which operated
three boats at a peak schedule of 12 trips per day. The 1984 site plan approval covered the "Ticket
Office Lot" and approved seven parking spaces. Since the ferry operation involved vehicle trans-
port, the Planning Board felt there was no need to make formal provisions for vehicle parking.
6. The operation has grown incrementally over the past decade to encompass four boats
operating 16 trips per day at peak schedule. A copy of the June 1995 ferry schedule is attached as
Exhibit C.
7. In June 1995 the Planning Board approved a site plan to add 69 parking spaces to the
original site plan. The spaces were approved on the "Parking Lot." The Planning Board was told
that these spaces were being added for long-term and employee parking. The Planning Board was
not advised of any proposed change in the nature and intensity of the ferry service.
8. Within three weeks after receiving site plan approval for the 69 spaces, Cross Sound
Ferry Services Inc. announced its intent to operate a high-speed, passenger-only ferry service, with
a passenger capacity of350, operating at six round trips per day. Defendant proposes to imple-
ment this passenger-only ferry service on July 19, 1995 and has advertised the service as available
as of that date. A copy of the advertisement which appeared inNewsday on July 9, 1995 is
attached as Exhibit F. Defendant has issued a new ferry schedule announcing six daily trips of the
"Express Service" passenger-only ferry. A copy of the new schedule is attached as Exinbit G.
9. The Planning Board is charged with making the determination whether a site plan
approval is required for a change in use or intensity of use of an existing operation per Southold
Town Code Section 100-250 and 100-253. A copy of these ordinances are attached as Exhibit H.
10. By resolution, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed addition ofa high-
speed, passenger -only ferry is a significant change in the nature and intensity of the ferry operation
<"
which requires the ferry operation to apply for and receive a revised site plan approval prior to
implementing the change in use. A copy of that Resolution is attached as Exhibit L.
11. The Planning Board has determined that the introduction of passenger-only ferry service
is a significant alteration from the existing vehicle ferry service, inasmuch as passengers must now
leave their vehicles on the ferry site instead of driving them onto the ferry. The site was never de-
signed to handle these parking demands. The change in use is significant regardless of the numbers
of passenger -only ferry trips proposed.
12. However, the proposed implementation of six passenger-only ferry trips per day is a
significant difference in intensity of use. This change further exacerbates the need for Defendant to
obtain site plan approval prior to implementing the passenger-only ferry service.
13. To date, the Planning Board has not received or approved a revised site plan which
addresses the significant concerns created by the proposed change of use. Cross Sound Ferry has
not spoken to the Planning Board about the proposed change in its operations.
14. The current parking situation, as it exists prior to the introduction of the high-speed,
passenger-only ferry is strained. The recent popularity of the Foxwoods Resort Casino in
Connecticut has resulted in an increase in the numbers of cars and on-site parking. A copy of the
June schedule of Cross-Sound Ferry, attached as Exhibit C, promotes a complimentary shuttle bus
service to Foxwoods. This encourages passengers to leave their vehicles in New York, rather than
taking them to Connecticut as was past practice. These vehicles are now parking on the "Snack
Bar Lot," which is a dirt lot that has not been designed, constructed, marked or approved for
parking. The vehicles park in a haphazard fashion which creates hazards to both pedestrians and
vehicles.
15. The "Snack Bar Lot" has never had site plan approval for use as a parking lot. The
Southold Town Code requires all properties which are part of the operations of a business to come
in for site plan approval. Defendant has failed to obtain such approval, and must be enjoined from
using the "Snack Bar Lot" for parking until it has such approval and can safely handle the parking
load that is now being placed upon it.
16. The increase in numbers of parked vehicles has resulted in complaints of vehicles parking
on nearby private properties, or on the State Right-of-Way. The current parking situation is
seriously strained.
17. The proposed change in service to include a passenger-only ferry will place unbearable
strains on the site. There are only 74 spaces approved for the ferry operation. In a worst case
scenario, if the passenger-only ferry service transports the capacity of 3 50 passengers per trip, at
the proposed six round trips per day, and the passengers drove two to a car, the proposed use
would generate the need for an additional 1,050 parking spaces. The 74 approved spaces are
clearly inadequate.
18. Site plan approval is designed to address the parking, loading and access problems which
the new service will create. If the passenger-only service were instituted before these issues were
addressed, there would be serious hazards to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Southold and the users of the facility. Vehicles would be parked in unsafe areas, passengers would
. have to travel great distances or cross rough, undrained and unlit areas, there would be illegal
parking on adjacent properties, and a seriously chaotic situation would arise.
19. Site plan approval will also address the serious traffic issues which arise when the
proposed passenger-only service generates a possible additional 2000 vehicle trips per day. The
traffic must travel along a single highway, Route 25, between Orient and Greenport. This two-
lane, rural highway will be profoundly impacted by the long lines of cars travelling to and from the
new passenger ferry.
20. Residents of the area between Orient and Greenport currently experience long lines of
ferry vehicles which prevent turns on or off Route 25, loud traffic noise and speeding vehicles. The
two-lane, ruraJ nature of the road makes regulation of these traffic hazards very difficult. The
anticipated increase in traffic would worsen this situation.
21. In its press release, Defendant has suggested that these traffic problems may be mitigated
by creating a Long Island Railroad-bus link between passengers and the ferry. However, the
railroad only runs one train daily to Greenport. The five other passenger-only ferry round trips will
require passengers to drive their own vehicles to the ferry terminal. If Defendant is pennitted to
institute the passenger -only ferry service without site plan approval, there is no assurance that any
efforts will be made to mitigate the increase in parking and traffic. It may well be that lives will be
unnecessarily lost before the issues are addressed.
~~hi~~Jr.~~~
Sworn to before me this
17th day ofJuly, 1995.
y)-,---" rl. Ji r!.t"-''r'' )
Notary Pu ic
UNDAJ. COOPER
Notary Public. 5mB of N_ Yactc'j;t
No. 4822563, Suffolk County
Term ExpiresDecember31.19-.!.;
UJ
II .
SUPREME COURT OF THE ST ATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Index No. '1"7 - (:z.::,: /..
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS. INC..
Petitioner,
-against -
NOTICE OF PETITION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, THE PLANNING BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE
BUILDING INSPECTORS OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD,
.....
Respondents.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the annexed Petition, duly
verified the 28th day of May, 1997, the undersigned will move this Court at the
Supreme Court Building, 235 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 17th day
of June, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for a
judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules: (I) directing
Respondents the Town of Southold, the Planning Board of the Town of Southold and
the Building Inspectors of the Town of Southold to enforce the provisions of the
Zoning Code of the Town of Southold and SEQRA by enforcing the mandatory
provisions of 99 100-250, 100-253 and 100-285 of the Code of the Town of Southold;
enforcing the Planning Board's resolution 0: July 14, 1995; and enforcing the
mandatory provisions of SEQRA and the Environmental Quality Review Law of the
Town of Southold; and (2) annulling, reversing and setting aside any unlawful
, <J
approval of CSFs operation of the passenger-only ferry and physical alteration of
CSF's site at Orient Point by the Planning Board as such approval is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Planning Board and enjoining the Planning Board from further
approval or authorization of such activities unless and until CSF obtains revised site
plan approval and fully complies with SEQRA and granting such other and further
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 28. 1997
Respectfully submitted,
Erie J. Bressler
Janet Geasa
WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c.
10315 Main Road
P.O. Box 1424
ManilUck, NY 11952
(516) 298-8353
Thomas G. Rafferty
Jennifer M. Hooper
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth A venue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 474-1000
Attorneys for Petitioner Southold Citizens for
Safe Roads, Inc.
TO:
Town of Southold
Planning Board of the Town of Southold
Building Inspectors of the Town of Southold
Town Hall 53095 Main Street
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
, f
SUPREME COURT OF THE ST ATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Index No.
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS. INc..
Petitioner.
-against -
VERIFIED PETITION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. THE PLANNING BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE
BUILDING INSPECTORS OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD, .
Respondents.
Petitioners allege upon knowledge as to themselves and their own
actions and upon information and belief as to all other matters as follows:
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
I. Petitioners bring this action pursuant to CPLR Article 78 in
order to compel Respondents to perform their non-discretionary duties under the
Southold Town Zoning Code, the State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA") and the Environmental Quality Review Law of the Town of Southold.
2. This Petition is based on the ongoing unauthorized
intensification of use by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("CSF") at its Orient Point
, ,
sire, including CSF's operarion of a high-speed, passenger-only ferry service, CSF's
unaurhorized physical alterarion of its site and CSF's ongoing non-conforming use of
its sire.
PARTIES
3. The Town of Southold is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under rhe laws of rhe Srate of New York and situare in the County of Suffolk.
4. The Planning Board of the Town of Southold is a public agency
establ1shed by rhe Town of Sourhold and is responsible for reviewing all sire
development plans required by rhe Southold Town Zoning Code.
5. The Building Inspectors of the Town of Southold are public
officials whose duty ir is to administer and enforce the provisions of the Sourhold
Town Zoning Code.
6. Sourhold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR") is a New York
not-for-profit corporarion comprised of Southold residents and property owners.
Membership in SCSR is open to all Southold residents a:J.d property owners. The
members of SCSR currently include persons who own property or reside along Route
25, the only access road to CSF's Orient Point facility. The members of SCSR also
currently include persons who own property or reside in the immediate vicinity of
-2-
,
CSF's facility at Oriem Poim. SCSR was organized to promote the imerests of
Soumold residems and property owners in ensuring me safety of Soumold' s roads, in
preserving the quality of life and the value of property in me community, and in
protecting SOUlhold's environmemal resources.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. As of May 1995, CSF owned or comrolled four parcels of land
at me Oriem Poim terminal. The first parcel, designated Lot 15-09-10.1 on me Town
of Southold's tax map, will be referre~ to as me "Parking Lot." The second parcel.
designated as Lot 15-09-11.1, on which CSF's ticket offices are located, will be
referred 10 as me "Ticket Office Lot." The mird parcel, designated as Lot 15-09-
15.1, on which CSF's snack bar is located, will be referred to as the "Snack Bar
Lot." The fourth parcel, designated Lot 15-09-3.5, will be referred to as me "Trust
Property Parcel." (A copy of me 1995 tax map is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)
8. The first lhree CSF parcels are zoned MIl under me Soumold
Town Zoning Code. The uses permitted in me MIl zone are set forth in 9 100-121 of
me Zoning Code. Section 100-121(B)(2) provides mat "ferry terminals" are permitted
wim a special exception permit from me Board of Appeals, subject 10 site plan
approval by me Planning Board.
-3-
,
9. The fourth parcel is owned by Adam and Jessica Wronoski
family members of John P. Wronoski, the president of CSF, and is residentially
zoned for single family housing.
10. CSF obtained site plan approval from the Town of Southold in
1984 for a vehicular ferry service which operated three boats at a peak schedule of
twelve trips per day. The Town's 1984 site plan approval included seven parking
spaces on the Ticket Office Lot. Because CSF s operation involved vehicle transport.
the Planning Board of the Town of SOUlhold (the "Planning Board" or the "Board")
concluded, at that time, that there was no need to provide for any additional vehicle
parking at the terminal. (See Affidavit of George Ritchie Latham, Jr., sworn to on
July 17, 1995 and submitted by the Town of Southold in connection with its Order to
Show Cause on the same date, ("Latham Aff. ") at 1 5, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.)
II. Between 1984 and early 1995, CSF's operations grew
incrementally to encompass four boats operating;: ixteen trips per day at peak
schedule. (ld. at" 6.) Currently, CSF offers twenty-two daily trips at peak summer
schedule, including sixteen vehicle trips and six high-speed, passenger-only trips.
(See Affidavit of Harold D. Watson sworn to on May 27, 1997 ("Watson Aff. ") at
,. 6, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)
-4-
.
12. Even before CSF"s introduction of the high-speed, passenger-
only ferry, CSF failed to adhere to (he terms of its 1984 site plan. For example, CSF
has regularly permitted parking to take place on a the Snack Bar Lot, on Route 25
and on the Route 25 extension. The 1984 site plan makes no provisions for these ad-
hoc parking arrangements and ~hey violate Slate environmental and local zoning laws.
In addition, contrary to the provisions of the 1984 site plan, CSF has failed to require
exiting traffic to use the exit road within the property. (Id. at ~ 2.)
13. In early June 1995, the Planning Board approved an application
by CSF to add 69 parking spaces to the original site plan on the Parking Lot. At the
time of its application for these additional spaces, CSF represented to the Planning
Board that the parking spaces were being added to accommodate long-term and
employee parking. At that time, CSF had never advised the Planning Board of any
proposed change in the nature or intensity of the ferry service at Orient Point.
(Latham Aff. at 1 7.)
14. On June 19, 1995 the then Supervisor of the Town of Southold,
Thomas Wickham, met with Richard MacMurray, the Vice President and General
Manager of CSF. During that rr,,;:eting, Mr. MacMurray introduced, for the fIrst
time, the concept of offering a single, passenger-only ferry trip per day which would
-5-
<
be linked to the Long Island Railroad by a bus connection between Greenpoint and
Orient. (See Affidavit of Thomas Wickham, sworn to on July 14, 1995 and
submitted by the Town of Southold in connection with its Order to Show Cause on
July 17, 1995, ("Wickham Aff.") at' 3, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
15. On Junt; 23, 1995, less than three weeks after receiving site plan
approval for the 69 parking spaces and jl'st a few days after Supervisor Wickham's
meeting with Mr. MacMurray, CSF announced its intent to introduce a high-speed,
passenger-only ferry service with a passenger capacity of 350, operating six round
trips per day from Orient Point to New London, Connecticut. CSF announced that its
new "Express Service" would be available as of July 19, 1995. (Id. at 1 4.)
16. On June 27, 1995, Supervisor Wickham notified Mr.
MacMurray that he believed that he had been misled as to CSF's intentions with
respect to the passenger-only ferry service. (Id.)
17. On July 13, 1995, Supervisor Wickham again met with Mr.
MacMurray. At this time, Supervisor Wickham informed Mr. MacMurray that the
Town of Southold required CSF to submit a revised site plan and obtain approval of
that site plan before CSF could commence its high-speed, passenger-only ferry
-6-
,
service. Mr. MacMurray would not agree to suspend the introduction of CSF's new
ferry service until revised site plan approval was obtained. (Id. at ~ 5.)
18. On July 14. 1995, the Planning Board met and determined that
the proposed addition of a high-speed, passenger-only ferry by CSF constituted a
significant change in the nature and intensity of CSF's operation at Orient Point. and
therefore, the Board resolved that CSF was required to apply for and receive site plan
approval orior to implementing the new ferry service. (See Resolution of the
Planning Board vI' the Town of Southold dated July 14, 1995. attached hereto as
Exhibit 5.)
19. The Planning Board's resolution was based on its conclusion
that the introduction of a passenger-only ferry service constituted a signiticant change
in the nature of CSF's use of its faciliry which, at the time, involved a vehicle ferry
service only. CSF's site, which is located in a designated critical environmental area,
was never designed to accommodate the parking and traffic demands that would
invariably be created by a passenger-only ferry service, The Board furrher
determined that the change in the nature of CSF's ferry service was significant
regardless of the number of daily passenger-only trips offered. (See Latham Aff. at
, 11.)
-7-
20. The Planning Board's resolution was also based on its
conclusion that the introduction of a passenger-only ferry service offering six trips per
day constituted a significant intensification of CSF's use of its facility at Orient Point.
(Id. at , 12.)
21. At no time following its July 14, 1995 resolution did the
Planning Board ever modify that resoluti:m.
22. In order to enforce the Planning Board's July 14, 1995
resolution in the face of CSF's refusal to suspend introduction of the high-speed.
passenger-only service until CSF obtained site plan approval, the Town of Southold
filed an action against CSF on July 17, 1995. (Town of Southold v. Cross Sound
Ferrv Services. Inc., No. 95-16263.) In its verified complaint, the Town sought to
require CSF to submit its plans for expansion to the legally required review process
and, pending review and approval of a revised site plan, to: (i) enjoin the operation of
the high-speed, passenger-only ferry service and (ii) enjoin unauthorized use of the
Snack Bar Lot for ad-hoc parking, (A copy of the Verified Complaint is attached
hereto as Exhibit 6.)
23. On July 18, 1995, this Court, (Hon. Patrick J. Henry
presiding), recognized that CSF's proposed expansion represented an increase in the
-8-
intensity of use at CSF's site, but denied the Town's request for a temporary
restraining order, adjourned sine die the Town's request for a preliminary injunction
and urged the parties to resolve the matter. (A copy of Justice Henry's Decision is
attached hereto as Exhibit 7.)
24. On or about July 19, 1995, CSF introduced its high-speed,
passenger only ferry service without applying for or receiving revised site plan
approval.
25. Despite t3e assurances given to this Court by representatives of
CSF during the July 18, 1995 hearing that the high-speed ferry was not intended to
increase its passenger volume and would not necessitate additional parking at Orient
Point, CSF announced a plan to construct parking for more than 400 cars, including
both a high-densiry parking lot on the Trust Property Parcel as well as parking on the
Snack Bar Lot. The Trust Property Parcel. which is zoned for single-family
residential use, is not only in a critical environmental area, but is also immediately
adjacent to designated park land owned by Suffolk Counry. That parcel also contains
protected tidal wetlands that are part of the Peconic Estuary critical environmental
area.
-9-
26. The introduction of the high-speed, passenger-only ferry has
created a parking crisis in and around CSF's Orient Point facility. Although CSF
currently has site plan approval for approximately 75 parking spaces, there were 365
cars parked in and around the [enninal on Sarurday, May 24, 1997, exclusive of the
loading area which has a capacity for approximately 120 cars. (See Watson Aff. at ,
. .
5.)
27. The popularity of the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut has
resulted in an increase in the numbers of cars parking in and around [he site.
Currently, for each of the passenger-only trips, CSF offers a "Casino Bonus Value
Pack" which includes a complimentary shuttle bus to and from Foxwoods Casino, a
$10 food voucher and several gambling vouchers valued at $15.
28. In connection with its introduction of a high-speed, passenger-
only ferry service in July 1995, CSF appears to have made a number of unauthorized
physical alterations at its Orient Point site. For example, CSF appears to have
demolished its dock below the mean low water mark; reconstructed the dock; dredged
the area around the tenninal; redesigned the ferry slip to allow for the docking of two
ferry boats at the same time; anti added a steel bridge ramp to provide access to the
high-speed ferry. CSF has also stored dredge spoils on both the Snack Bar Lot and
-10-
the Trust Property Parcel and appears to have graded and performed other earthwork
on the Trust Property Parcel. These actions appear to have destroyed ail of the
natural vegetation and the natural high water mark on that Parcel. (See Wa[son Aff.
at 1[ 4.)
29. Since S:SF's introduction of the passenger-only ferry service, the
Town of Southold has done little, if anything. to rake affmnative steps to require CSF
to comply with state and local law. For nearly nine months following this Court'S
decision of July 18, 1995, CSF did r.Jt submit the site plan requested by [he Town of
Southold Planning Board and required by S 100-250 of the Town Code. Nor did CSF
complete an Environmental Assessment Form as required by S 617.6 of the SEQRA.
30. On November 7, 1995. rather than submitting the required
revised site plan, CSF submitted an application to the Planning Board to convert the
Trust Property Parcel into a parking lot--with increased densiry of parking beyond that
permitted by the Town Code--and to increase the densiry of parking on the Parking
Lot. The building inspector denied the application on the grounds that the proposed
change required site plan approval by the Planning Board. CSF appealed the decision
to the Zoning Board of Appeals in December 1995, seeking "an interpretation and/or
variance of the Zoning Ordinance." On Dectmber 26. 1995, the Zoning Board of
-11-
Appeals returned CSF's application. CSF still did not submit a revised site plan. (A
copy of CSF's application and the Planning Board's decision are attached hereto as
Exhibit 8.)
31. On March 3, 1996, counsel for the Town of Southold, Ms.
Laury Dowd, wrote to counsel for SCSR, Mr. Thomas G. Rafferty regarding SCSR's
stated intent to file a motion to intervene in the Town's lawsuit against CSF. In that
letter, Ms. Dowd informed Mr. Rafferty that the Town Board had decided that the
Town would not oppose SCSR's motion to intervene in that action. (A copy of Ms.
Dowd's letter to Mr. Rafferty is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.)
32. On April II, 1996, CSF submitted what it characterized as a
"preliminary site plan." That application related only to the proposed parking lot on
the Trust Property Parcel and the increased density of parking on the Parking Lol.
The application did not address the high-speed ferry or CSF's non-conforming use of
the Snack Bar Lol. Indeed, CSF's application specifically reserved its stated position
that both this Court and the Town lacked the authority to compel CSF to comply with
existing state and local laws. CSF's reservation also purported to legitimize--and
thereby exempt from review--its ongoing non-conforming use of the Orient Point
facility. Specifically, CSF purported to reserve its right to operate the passenger-
-12-
only ferry and to continue to use the Snack Bar Lot for ad-hoc parking. (A copy of
CSF's "preliminary site plan" is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.)
33. In response to CSF's disregard of both state and local law and
the Town's intermittent and dilatory responses, SCSR moved, on April 23, 1996, to
intervene in the Town's lawsuit against CSF in order to protect the interests of its
members. That motion was argued on kne 7. 1996, but has not yet been decided.
(A copy of SCSR's Motion and supporting papers are attached hereto as Exhibit 11.)
34. On or about May 13, 1996. CSF resumed its operation of the
high-speed, passenger only ferry service for a second season. That service was
resumed without CSF having obtained site plan approval as required by S 100-253 of
the Southold Town Code, and without having complied with the provisions of
SEQRA. In addition, CSF appeared t? have physically altered the Trust Property
Parcel in connection with its plans to turn that parcel into a parking facility. CSF
also continued its non-conforming use of the Snack Bar Lot. (See Watson Aff. at
14. )
35. In opposition to SCSR's Motion to Intervene in the Town's
lawsuit against CSF, CSF's counsel William W. Esseks, submitted an affidavit to this
Court in which he stated that: "No one has to seek a judgment of this Court to
-1)-
require the Town or CSF to comply with SEQRA, it is, as set forth above, a
mandatory part of each application." (See Affidavit of William W. Esseks In
Opposition to Motion to Intervene, sworn to on May 14, 1996, attached hereto as
Exhibit 12.)
36. Contrary to Ms. Dowd's representations in his letter of March
6, 1996, to Mr. Rafferty, the Town of 30uthold opposed SCSR's Motion to
Intervene. Mr. Richard Ward, then Chairman of the Planning Board, submitted an
affidavit in opposition to SCSR's Motion to Intervene in which he assured this Court
that "Our Board will comply with provisions of the Town Code and SEQRA." (See
Affidavit of Richard Ward In Opposition to Motion to Intervene sworn to on May 16,
1996. attached hereto as Exhibit 13.) At the time Mr. Ward made that statement to
this Court, CSF was operating its passenger-only ferry service for a second season in
violation of both the Town Code and SEQRA.
37. Despite the resumption of the passenger-only Ferry service by
CSF, the Town of Southold did not act to enforce the July 14, 1995 resolution or the
laws on which it was premised. Moreover, despite the unambiguous language of
SEQRA which requires full comphnce with its provisions before any action may
commence, the Town of Southold did not act to enforce SEQRA.
-14-
38. In the summer of 1996--while CSF's passenger-only ferry was
running without the requisite regulatory approvals for a second season--the Planning
Board, as the designated "lead agency" under SEQRA, considered CSF's site plan in
order to determine whether or not it was subject to further review under SEQRA..
39. On July. 8, 1996, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Board, CSF submitted what it claimed was a final revised site plan;
however, this plan, like the preliminary plan, only covered the proposed high density
parking and did not address the operalion of the passenger-only ferry service or the
physical alterations of the waterfront undertaken to suPPOrt that service. Due, at least
in part, to strong public objection to the omissions in CSF's proposed site plan, the
Town advised CSF to submit a more comprehensive site plan.
40. At the next Planning Board meeting on July 29. 1996. CSF
submitted three documents. The first document was the same proposed site plan
previously submitted and rejected by the Town. The second was an "as is" site plan
and the third was a "concept drawing" which CSF did not and could not represent to
be a site plan because it involved use and alteration of properly not owned or
controlled by CSF, including a state right-of-way that provides the exclusive access to
public beach. Following this meeting, the Town of Southold accepted, for purposes
-15-
of review, the very same site plan that it had previously rejected as too limited, and
undertook to circulate all three documents to the relevant authorities. In response to
the public's objections at that meeting, the Town represented that any shortcomings in
CSF's proposed site plan would be resolved as part of the SEQRA review.
41. On September 16, 1996, the Planning Board issued a State
Environmental Quality Review Act Positive Declaration classifying CSF's revised site
plan application as a "Type I" action. A Type I classification carries with it the
presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
(A copy of the Positive Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 14.)
42. Pursuant to the provisions of SEQRA, the Positive Declaration
issued by the Town required that an Environmental Impact Statement C'EIS") be
prepared to analyze the environmental effects of CSF's proposed and ongoing actions
and to determine whether and how such effects can be minimized.
43. Rather than continue the administrative review that it has
previously urged this Court not to disturb, CSF filed an Article 78 proceeding against
the Town on October 16, 1996. (Cross Sound FetrY Services, Inc. v. Town of
Southold, No. 96-26389.) CSF's petition seeks the annulment of the Positive
Declaration on three grounds: (i) CSF disputes the Planning Board's conclusion that
-16-
SEQRA requires that the review of the environmental impact of CSF's expansion and
intensification of use be conducted in a non-segmented manner (i.e., that the review
consider the entirety of CSF's operation, including the high-speed ferry, rather than
only the proposed conversion of the Trust Property Parcel into a parking facility);
(ii) CSF maintains that it is wholly or panially exempt from the application of local
police power and state environmental law by virtUe of its status as an interstate water-
carrier service; and (iii) CSF rejects the Planning Board's conclusion that CSF's
actions at Orient Point constin,te a 'Type [" action under SEQRA. (A copy of CSF's
Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit 15.)
44. On November 20, 1996, SCSR moved to intervene in CSF's
action against the Town. That motion is currently pending. (A copy of SCSR's
Motion and supporting papers are attached hereto as Exhibit 16.) To date. the
Planning Board has not filed any response to CSF's October 16, 1996 Article 78
Petition.
45. During the fall of 1996, the Town developed, with the
assistance of its independent environmental consultant, a draft scoping outline which
established the content and format (,f the draft E1S required to review CSF's
operations.
-17-
46. On November 4, 1996, CSF submitted its proposed scoping
outline and on December 4, 1996, a public scoping hearing was held at the Southold
Town Hall. (A copy of CSF's draft scoping outline is attached as Exhibit 17.)
47. On December 16, 1996, the Planning Board's environmental
consultant submitted the "Cooss Sound Ferry SEQR scoping outline," and the
Planning Board passed a resolution adopting that scoping outline. That scoping
outline requires a non-segmented review of CSF's entire expansion at Orient Point,
including its unauthorized introduction of the high-speed, passenger-only feny service
and its non-conforming use of the Snack-Bar Lot. (A copy of the scoping outline is
attached hereto as Exhibit 18.)
48. On January IS, 1997, in yet another effort to thwart
environmental review of its operations at Orient Point, CSF commenced a second
Article 78 proceeding against the Town. This petition seeks annulment of the
resolution of the Planning Board adopting the scoping outline. CSF's second Article
78 petition reiterates its contention that this Court and the Town of Southold lack the
authority to regulate its actions at Orient Point. (A copy of CSF's second Article 78
Petition is attached hereto as Exhi"it 19.)
-18-
49. On February 10. 1997. SCSR moved to intervene in CSFs
second lawsuit against the Town and that motion is currently pending. (A copy of
SCSR's Motion and supporting papers are attached hereto as Exhibit 20.) The
Planning Board has yet to file its response to CSFs January IS, 1997 Article 78
Petition.
50. Beginning on or about May I. 1997, CSF resumed operation of
its high-speed, passenger-only ferry for the third consecutive season. The operation
of that ferry is in violation of state anu local environmental law as well as local
zoning law. CSF also continues its non-conforming use of the Snack Bar Lot. (See
Watson Aff. at " 3 and 5.)
51. Notwithstanding the determination by the Town that CSF's
introduction of the high-speed ferry and its proposed development of a high-density
parking lot are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the
Town has not acted to enforce its own resolutions or the state and local law on which
those resolutions are premised.
52. On April 29, 1997, counsel for CSF, William W. Esseks, wrote
to this Court requesting an adjournment of CSF's two Article 78 proceedings against
the Town until the fall. Mr. Esseks based his request on the contention that the draft
-l9-
EIS will be prepared over the summer "when there is maximum traffic and maximum
ferry service" and that CSF's challenges to the authority of the Town to require the
environmental review should not he heard until that review is complete. Mr. Esseks
further represented that the Town would agree to this adjournment. (A copy of Mr.
Esseks letter is attached heretD as Exhibit 21.)
53. On May 5, 1997, Thomas G. Rafferty, counsel for SCSR,
responded to Mr. Esseks' request by letter to this Court, asserting that both state and
local law require that review and approval of what should be a proposed action take
place before such action is commenced. Mr Rafferty also asserted that nothing could
be more wasteful of community and judicial resources than proceeding with the draft
EIS before resolving CSF's basic challenge to the authority of the Town to regulate
its activities at Orient Point: if the legal argument in CSF's petitions is correct, then
the Town of Southold has no authority to require CSF's compliance with state and
local law and the SEQRA review is totally unnecessary. (A copy of Mr. Rafferty's
letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 22.)
54. On May 8, 1997, counsel for the Town, Francis J. Yakaboski,
wrote to this Court confirming that he had, in fact, agreed with Mr. Esseks to adjourn
CSF's Article 78 proceedings despite CSF's standing challenge to the authority of the
-20-
Town to require CSF's compliance with state and local law (including the outcome of
the draft EIS) and despite CSF's recent resumption of the unauthorized ferry service
for a third season in a row. Mr. Yakaboski also stated his position that neither he nor
the Town contemplated enforcing state and local law by seeking to enjoin CSF's
unauthorized actions pending. completion of the draft EIS. (A copy of Mr.
Yakaboski's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 23.)
55. On May 6, 1997, the president of SCSR, Mr. Thor Hanson
wrote to the head of the Planning Board, Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., outlining CSF's
pattern of tlagranrly disregarding both state and local law and requesting that the
Town of Southold act immediately to enforce its resolution of July 14, 1995 and the
state and local laws on which that resolution was premised. (A copy of Mr. Hanson's
letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 24.)
56. On May 13, 1997, Mr. Orlowski responded to Mr. Hanson's
letter, representing that during the March 11, 1997 meeting before Jus,ice Dunn
concerning CSF's Article 78 Petitions against the Town, Justice Dunn had rejected the
possibility of enjoining CSF's current illegal operations. Mr. Orlowski wrote: "in
essence, the Judge [Justice Dunn] I-.J.s declined to move ahead with an injunction at
this time." (A copy of Mr. Orlowski's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 25.)
-21-
57. Mr. Orlowski funher represented that it was the Town's
intention to allow CSF until October to fully address the scoping outline and submit
the draft EIS, and effectively rejected SCSR's demand that the Town enforce the
mandatory provisions of state and local law which require full compliance with the
environmental review before CSF may operate the passenger-only ferry or make any
alterations to its site. (Id.)
58. CSF's course of conduct since June 1995 demonstrates a
disregard of state and local law accompanied by effons to avoid any judicial
determination that would force CSF to comply with those laws.
59. The Town of Southold's course of conduct since July 1995
demonstrates an unwillingness to enforce provisions of state and local laws that are
mandatory and not discretionary.
COUNT I: THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'S FAILURE
TO ENFORCE LOCAL ZONING LAW
60. Petitioner restates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-
59 above.
61. The Planning Board of the Town of Southold determined by
resolution on July 14, 1995 that CSt"s then rroposed introduction of a high-speed,
passenger-only ferry would represent a significant change in the nature and intensity
-22-
of its use at Orient Point and would create a need for additional parking.
Accordingly, the Board resolved that CSF would need to obtain revised site plan
approval before it could commence the new ferry service.
62. The Town Supervisor at the time, Mr. Wickham notified the
president of CSF, Mr. Mac~[urray, that CSF required revised site plan approval
before it could commence the passenger-only ferry service.
63. In response to CSF's indication that it intended to proceed in
violation of local zoning law, the Tow:! of Southold filed a Verified Complaint,
sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against CSF on July
17. 1995. alleging that CSF's unauthorized introduction of the passenger-only ferry
service, prior to applying for and obtaining site plan approval, posed an imminent and
serious threat to the public.
64. On July 19, 1995, CSF commenced the operation of it high-
speed, passenger-only ferry service without the requisite regulatory approvals. CSF
operated that unauthorized ferry service again during the summer of 1996 though
early January 1997. CSF has recently resumed the operation of that ferry service,
again without the required approval from the Town of Southold.
-23-
65. Since July 18, 1995, when this Court adjourned the Town's
motion for a preliminary injunction, the Town appears to have acquiesced in CSF's
unauthorized intensification of its use of the Orient Point facility including its
unlawful operation of the passenger-only ferry.
66. Mr. Yakaboski's letter of May 8, 1997 to this Court confirming
his agreement to adjourn CSF's Article 78 petitions until the fall and his stated
position that the Town does not contemplate pursuing its action against CSF
demonstrate the Town's refusal to enforce the local zoning laws.
67. Mr. Orlowski's letter of May 13. 1997 to the president of SCSR
representing the Town's intent to continue to permit CSF to engage in unauthorized
uses at its Orient Point facility, including its operation of the passenger-only ferry
likewise demonstrate the Town's refusal to enforce mandatory provisions of the local
zoning laws.
68. Section 100-250 of the Southold Town Zoning Code provides
that "any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the
site in terms of parking, loading, access, drainage, open space or utilities will require
site plan approval. "
-24-
69 Under ~~ [00-250 and 100-253 of the Southold Town Zoning
Code, the Planning Board is charged with making the determination whether site plan
approval is required for a change in the nature or intensity of use of an existing
operation.
70. Section. [00-253(8) of the Southold Town Zoning Code provides
that: "No regrading, clearing, tree removal or any other work in preparation of future
use of a site. _ _ may take place or be permined to take place until the site plan has
been approved by the Plannin3 Board."
71. Section 100-253(F) of the Southold Town Zoning Code provides
that failure to obtain site plan approval shall be a violation of this Article and shall be
subject to such penalties as are set forth in ~ 100-285 of this chapter.
72. Section 100-285 of the Southold Town Zoning Code provides
for a fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment for up to 15 days for an initial violation
of 9 100-253 and a fine of up to $1,500 and/or imprisonment for up to 15 days for a
second violation within eighteen months. Section 100-285 also expressly states that
each day on which such violation shall occur shall constitute a separate, additional
offense.
-25-
73. Section 100-280 Southold Town Zoning Code provides that: "It
shall be the duty of the Building Inspector . . . to administer and enforce the
provisions of this chapter [the Southold Town Zoning Code] and of all rules,
conditions and requirements adopted or specified pursuant thereto.
74. The Southold Town Zoning Code imposes unambiguous, non-
discretionary duties on the Planning Board and the Building Inspectors.
75. The purposes of the Southold Town Zoning Code are completely
frustrated unless site plan approval is obtained before a project is implemented.
76. Notwithstanding CSF's operation of the passenger-only ferry for
three consecutive seasons without the required site plan approval; and the Planning
Board's determination that CSF's operation of the passenger-only ferry without site
plan approval and CSF's non-conforming use of the Snack Bar Lot violate the zoning
laws of the Town of Southold; the Building Inspector and the Town are yet to
perform their non-discretionary duties of enforcing those laws by requiring that CSF
refrain from operating its passenger-only service or using the Snack Bar Lot for ad-
hoc parking unless and until CSF obtains site plan approval for such operations.
-26-
COUNT II: THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE
SEORA AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY REVIEW
LA W OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
77 . Petitioner restates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-
76 above.
78. Ne.w York's State Environment Quality Review Actu
SEQRA and its related administrative regulations (6 NYCRR, Part 617) are
incorporated into the Code of the Town of Southold as the Environmental Quality
Review Law of the Town of SoutholC:. SEQRA and its implementing regulations
require that all "agencies" including local governments conduct their affairs with an
awareness that they are the stewards of the air, water, land and living resources, and
that they have an obligation to protect the environment for the use and enjoyment of
this and all future generations. To this end, SEQRA requires that all government
regulated activity be subjected to a preliminary assessment of its environmental impact
prior to any pPJposal' s approval or implementation.
79. The purposes of SEQRA and the Environmental Quality Review
Law of the Town of Southold are completely frustrated unless review occurs before a
project is implemented. Delay is likely to render protective or mitigation efforts
impractical or impossible.
-27-
80.
The Planning Board of the Town of Southold is a "lead agency"
- -
as that term is defined under SEQRA.
81. CSF is a "project sponsor" as that term is defined under
SEQRA.
82.
CSF's intensification of its use of the Orient Point facilitv.
. .
including its introduction of a high-speed, passenger only ferry and its development of
additional parking spaces at Orient Point constimte an "action" as that term is defined
by SEQRA.
83. Section 6l7.3(a) of SEQRA provides that: "A project sponsor
may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of
SEQR have been complied with."
84. Section 44-4(A) of the Environmental Quality Review Law of
the Town of Southold provides that "the actions listed in Section 617.4 of the [New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations] as Type I actions are likely to have a significant
effect on the environment.
8S. Consistent with SEQRA and ~ 44-4(A) of the Environmental
Quality Review Law of the Town of Southold, the Planning Board determined on
September 16, 1996 that CSF's proposed and ongoing actions at Orient Point
-28-
constituted a Type I action that is likely to have a significant negative impact on the
environment.
86. CSF introduced its passenger-only ferry service and has
operated that ferry service for three consecutive seasons without first complying with
the provisions of SEQRA. C~F has also undenaken physical alterations of its dock
facility and the Trust Propeny Parcel in connection with its proposed development of
a high-density parking facility on that parcel and continues its non-conforming use of
the Snack Bar Lot.
87. Since July 18, 1995, the Town of Southold and the Planning
Board have failed to take any action to enforce the provisions of SEQRA which
require compliance prior to the approval or implementation of a proposed action.
88. CSF is effectively conducting its operations as if the SEQRA
review was compete and approval of its expanded operations has been obtained. That
is not the case, and CSF's ongoing activities are in direct violation of, among other
laws, SEQRA.
89. Mr. Yakaboski's letter of May 8, 1997 to this Coun confirming
his agreement to adjourn CSF's Artcle 78 petitions until the fall and his stated
-29-
position that the Town does not contemplate pursuing its action against CSF
demonstrate the Town's refusal to enforce the state and local environmental laws.
90. Mr. Orlowski's letter of May 13, 1997 to the president of SCSR
representing the Town's intent to continue to permit CSF to operate its passenger-only
ferry likewise demonstrate the Town's refusal to enforce the state and local
environmental laws.
COUNT III: THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'S UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTIVE
APPROVAL OF CSF'S FXPANSION AT ORIENT POINT
91. Petitioner restates and rea lieges the allegations in paragraphs 1-
90 above.
92. Section 617.3(a) of SEQRA provides that: "No agency
involved in an action may undenake, fund or approve the action until it has complied
with the provisions of SEQR. "
93. Section 44-3 of the Environmental Quality Review Law of the
Town of Southold provides that: "No decision to carry out or approve an action, other
than as a Type II action, shall be made by a town agency until there has been full
compliance with all requirements of this chapter and the [New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations] .
-30-
94. CSF introduced its passenger-only ferry service and has
operated that ferry service for three consecutive seasons without first complying with
the provisions of SEQRA. CSF has also undertaken physical alterations of its
terminal facility and the Trust Property Parcel in connection with its proposed
development of a high-density parking facility on that parcel.
95. Mr. Yakaboski's letter of May 8. 1997 to this Court and Mr.
Orlowski's letter of May 13, 1997 to the president of SCSR reflect constructive
approval and alithorization of CSF's vpt:ration of the passenger-only ferry and CSF's
physical alteration of the site at Orient Point, including the Trust Property Parcel, by
the Town, the Planning Board and the Town's Building Inspectors.
96. SCSR has no adequate remedy at law because the constructive
authorization of CSF's unlawful activities at Orient Point by Respondents has enabled
CSF to continue to cause irreparable harm to the environment by introducing and
operating the passenger-only ferry and physically altering the site to support the
operation of the ferry.
PRA YER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court
enter an order directing the Town of Southola, the PlallPing Board and the Building
-31-
Inspectors of the Town of Southold to enforce the provisions of the Zoning Code of
the Town of Southold and SEQRA by:
(a) enforcing the mandatory provisions of 99 100-250, 100-253 and
100-285 of the Code of the Town of Southold;
(b) enforcing the Planning Board's resolution of July 14, 1995; and
(c) enforcing the mandatory provisions of SEQRA and the
Environmental Quality Review Law of the Town of Southold.
Petitioner also respectfully prays that this Court enter an order
annulling, reversing and setting aside any unlawful approval of CSP's operation of the
passenger-only ferry and physical alteration of CSP's site at Orient Point by the
Planning Board, as such approval is beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Board,
and enjoining the Planning Board from further approval or authorization of such
activities unless and until CSP obtains revised site plan approval and fully complies
with SEQRA.
-32-
, .
Dated: May 28, 1997
Respectfully submitted,
Eric J. Bressler
Janet Geasa
WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c.
10315 Main Road
P.O. Box 1424
Mattituck, NY 11952
(516) 298-8353
Thomas G. Rafferty
Jennifer M. Hooper
CRA V A TH, SWAINE & MOORE
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth A venue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 474-1000
Attorneys for Petitioner Southold Citizens for
Safe Roads, Inc.
-33-
. .' .
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Index No.
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC.,
Petitioner,
-against -
VERIFICATION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. THE PLANNING BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE
BUILDING INSPECTORS 'OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD.
Respondents.
STATE OF NEW YORK. )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
JENNIFER M. HOOPER, being duly sworn. states:
1. I am an anorney associated with the tirm of Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, attorneys for Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc., ("SCSR"), the Petitioner
in this action. I make this Verification pursuant to CPLR 9 3020(d).
2. The foregoing Petition is true to my own knowledge, except as
to matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters I believe
them to be true.
Jt' "
3. As to the ;natters stated in (he Petition on infonnation and
belief, the grounds for my belief are public documents. correspondence and other
documents furnished to me by SCSR and interviews with officers and other members
of SCSR.
4. SCSR is not making this verification because SCSR maintains its
offices in Suffolk County and has no offices in New York County, the county where
my office is located. Further, none of the officers of SCSR is located in New York
County.
-:~
Jetfer M. Hooper
Sworn to before me this
I
//
'--_/
28th day of May 1997.
i/ofef..! };M
ROBERT B. ZWlLUCH
Nolary Public. Slale of New YOIlI
No. 31-4630959
Qualified in New YorIc County
CommIUion Expires October 31, 1998
{
.
..
CI~'.
Su-tF
RK
P6
SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI LLP
,
BOWARD M.FINKELSTEI~
PIERRE O. LUNDBERG
FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI
FRANK A. ISLER
SUSAN ROGERS GRUN
OAIH O. BETTS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
456 GRIFFING AVENUE, CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET
P. Q. BOX 389
RIVERHEAD, N. Y. 1190]~0203
";'Q)~'
(316) 727-4100
REGINALD C. SMITH
FAX (516) 727-4130
1926-1903
DAWN C. THOMAS
MATTHEW M. FINKELSTEIN
GREOORY F. YAKABOSKI
April 1, 1998
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter & Angel
P. O. Box 279
Riverhead, NY 11901-0209
Re: Planning Board of Town of Southold vs. Cross Sound
Dear Mr. Esseks:
It has been some weeks now since Mr. Voorhis, the Planning Board's consultant,
and Mr. Warren met regarding the Scope Outline and we have heard nothing back. I
would appreciate it, especially in light of the determination rendered by Justice Dunn
just several days ago, if you would get back to us with a time table for the completion of
the DEIS.
Also, I am in receipt, this morning, of a statement from Mr. Voorhis, regarding the
consultations with Mr. Warren and Mr. Dunn at Southampton, which I request you have
your client pay.
Very truly yours,
F
FJY/rd
cc: ......Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Charles Voorhis
~'l~\i[fjl1'''~W' [E~
D...... ......1. ~ l~~~J o/.!.' Jl....,
~" ",.-~_., ,'"I
'." <',. ",tP"
(' '\" 1r","i;: '~',
,"".ij ,....,..'.
APR 3 19~~-
Sr)uthold Town
Pian, ,ng Board
"
.
14!1 001/ OO~
0.3131/98
13:49
'5'516
727 4130
.
LORNA
L2~ ALJC"
IIOW.&]lD K. .-nncB1.STEDl'
PlBJlJiI:B G. J.trXDBlUlG
FJlAlfC1& J. ~OJUO
1"1lA.NE .... llU.JUt
SlJ'SA3r :ROOZJlS G.R'gX
OAlR G. BETTS
SXITH, F'INKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG, IsLER ANI) YAEABOSEI, LLP
ATTORNEY. ~ COtl'NSELOBS AT LAW
..eo GBD'~l1<<i .A.VElfl1lE, COJUIXB Ol" LXNCOI.N' STREET
P. O. :SOX 380
B~VBBBl<AD. N. Y. 11QO'-0203
'..10) 727-...100
:FAX (:llll) 727-...130
BBOIKALJ) C. $xn'H
19815-1800
DAWlrl C. TKOlll.t.S
kATTKEW x. JI'I:M'.Il:.Z2ATEDI'
"'ltEGORY 7. YIo.J[.6BOSItI
March 31, 1998
Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Article 78 Proceeding$ (Cross Sound v. Southold)
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
I am pleased to enclose a copy of the decision received this date wherein
Justice Dunn dismissed on our motion, and that of Citizens for Safe Roads, the two
Article 78 proceedings which had been commenced by Cross Sound challenging
your Board's Positive Declaration, and further challenging the Scope Outline as
being too expansive in its demands.
You wlJl note in the last paragraph of the decision, that the Court has
determined that Cross Sound *waived any challenge to the actions taken by the
Planning Board. as well as to Its authority. and that further, the Court has
determined, that the Alternative Integrated Site Plan is one which must be dealt
with as part of the SEQRA process.
FJY/rd
Enclosure
cc: Jean Cochran, Supervisor
Laury Dowd, Town Attorney
Town of Southold Planning Department
I~
HAl( :H 1~98
Southold Town
Planning Board
Q3/31/98 13:49 .ft516 ~4130
-: ~.~ SRo;.;~f.Ia
LORNA
.
I4J 002/006
~ No. gs..".."t9: 9'7-1312
.
O Pl'\\2: 30
~~if:
. '~M~\~t
.'tt~. _
~l" :C6U1o\.
SUFrw ..
SUPREME COURT - Sl"ATE OF NEW YORK:
LU. PART 17 St1FFOLX COtINTY
....
IlIdez No. K4a1,
Not:ioD IOOl..c:A.R. ,ISP. twn-MG. 004-MG
'BID 11127m. ltID ImlOl
]ll5tiat
-
x
Wlez No. "-1313
Wccbn<<lOI.......~ om_un. OlM.Mn
RID 2I14N1 am JmIOl
In !be !lIaItel of !be ApP';-:-' of
CROSS SOUND A!RRY SBRVlCBS.1NC. 8lI4 ADAM C.
WRONOWSKI, lDiIivibDy 8lI4 . 0IIt:ldIIQ f<<
JESSICA. WRONOWSJa lDder lbe OlIIDIcticUl UCiMA.
FelidcDm.
I'clr. ladparlt JlllIIIIIt ID A1ticIe 11 of tbe Civil PlICtice
Law lid Rub
PL1F~S ATTY:
ESSI!XS,ltM Ulle. " ANcmL
101 Eat Maill Slmet
p.o.~m
~Ne..YOlt 111lO1
DiPr'S/MSP'S ATIY:
WlCIaiAM, WICICKUor It ~~ P.c.
!\fain RaId
P.O. Box 1424
~tlh...... New York I1l1S2
-.,.ma-
PLANNING BOARDOJl'THB TOWN OF 8Otl'.l'HOIJ),
. i-cr"'~
'X
tJp:m lhaltll10wtDa JIIIIIB 1II'......-.I.11D -ALl'8IlIon.... two A,wfi#4a 78 nmf'O....~_~ .1- """Rm dltnftfft
Noticaat.......: :8 - to - - T _ _... """\11'''''' I.? 1-17 :NotlceofMlltklUD4I11pJllllCilll,.,...lI:JIo.
2.0-~ ~1~ ~AtIIdI\Ib 1Ild... fl'l& pa~ 41__ 51~1: ~ ,--~-liIIlIIlIlllppo&tDg
pIllIea ~'l..."O . Olbet --: (~.. n I I. _ ..41 a.. -4. ~.oDII~. J ..II... _ ...., Il iI.
ORDBRBD that dJe modaDa by fU?""'- ~I Board of the Town of SQ.tboJd and the
lnOIiCll1a by fDtelv~ "01eaI SQQtbold Cftltem for Safe Roads, me. are grmteclmd the petiticm
are 1If-,v.-ed for tbe za.-a.hemiD.
m lbe &it of lIlosc two ~ 78 ~y p.atitV.n~ t!h.n-.V. SBQRA. poIitive
"_1~t1'X1 issued by the reIp<h'" 011. Seprembc:r 16, '1~ with reprd to . .,....., app1j...~"" .
(J'QI'Ic No. 96-26389; zefar:red to bereefIez 81 0a$I SouD4 I). In the "CCODd ~.-I~I pell~
c:baJ1eap a RII0~~ of Dec~ 16, 1~ ~ ~.4eDl adopcecl a ICClpfDg oudJne
pl<<('..unCDded by DI ezmw.....eatal C'ODSl11r.ant (rDdex No. 97-1312; rcfeaed to hereafter as Crou
Souad D). A 'Iri:f~ to rbe 1lligPtion Co1Jows.
Cross SoUDCl Pcy Se:rvices, 1JIc. (CSF) owm rh= parcels of pIOpelty at Orient Point
campriling a lOral or 5.269 acres. The p"'lnnnJ ,,-~ the ~ as t'nrl~~tlo.g of a "t.emUnal
parceI," wherec:u !be fen)' tc.~ ]:dn"'l..... . parkiq lot md ltaaiDa ueas IZe located; a "weat
pcw.l" .d:o-tt;y adJ&c:l8Ilt to &he fCIIiDal parcel_ CIJI:Ze:Il.~ used for prq aDd . "SDaCk bar
pa:ceJ" "-''''~i a &Dade \w 1Dd.. "pzH:mrq lKlD-~iQl pIrkI11g" lot. 1be fimt two pvceJs
are IOUdlwest aracllOWh of Rt. 1S, the third iI east of it. The Wronowski patilil:latn ov.u a pm:el
of2.4761Ch1Ih~ the SDaCk bar par=; r~..4 to IS the "TlIlIt property," it t!ODSislS at'vacmr,
deuecl JaDd ZODed fClt rcsvt-ri..l use (R-80). The four pro~ are condguous but for Route 2S
-
,"'..
<
~3/31/98 13:50 tt516 727 4130
.
caoss SOUND FERRY SSRVICES. IN<:. 0 It ano.
v. PLA.NNJNG BOAlm OF 1HB TOWN OP SOt.l1HOLD
IDds No. 96-11389. 97-1312
LORNA
.
~ 003/006
. .
-.
Pap 2
(MaJn R.oad), wbich curves tram Cl. t.pFO~.", east-west direeI1cm iDro a reugbly II01'lh-sourb.
directicm. l'I1fflrll tbrougJl the ploperty.
smc:c Navcmbar of 1975 IDd punuaal to a fecIen1 CeI1ifi.cate of Pub& CoDveDieAce an4
Ntnniry. CSP baa provic1ed Fi'srMlpf. O'Yllbide and freiPt aenice as a c.cmmaa ....mer by water
betwccII. Now lO"'do.a. t"-"""""'r.iwlllld. Oriel, N.... York. It has always .r~P1"ft>ocIar<<l WIlk-Qll.
pa5I~F' who park thdr vcbFl- at the fId1l11s pI'M'~. In die S}dq of 1994. tWO years after
the OP-;"lg of FoltWOOds Ca~ in ~eut, CSP beprl to offer a spr.1 ccmbUlatiCllll. rouDd
trip and bus ticbt (at New 1.-"""> to Poxwoods' p.lUQDI. Tbe fa11cnviD& lIIDDler CSP began
operating a ~ paW-F-cmJy teIIY for the "be.llefIr of Foxwoo4s-bclaDd wa&.aD. F"....~.
'l'he Town of ~t1v.\4 Fumptl)' msci!Uled an ac:doD. .pm", csp. IOt1m,1 to ejoin operatUm of the
high-speed pus~.yessel, '11~ on tbe ground of ko~eot parkiDc lIl*C to 1II'NWftftIM.....
the powiDg I1\IDl.ben of walk-on pIlllCllpll.l
In November of 1995 ped.tiw- applied far a ",,11""" pennit to =nvert the Tzust j'101""ty
into a F"""'''glot- with iJIcreased P"t4rifll dcmiO' (above the Ilntitalion in the TOYGl Code) and to
pmUt ID iDcrn~ deDIrity ofplddq at tbe =i~ lal 011. the 'lft'est parc:eL 1"he B-WJ4l1'lg ID.spcctor
d..... tbe applieaticD an4 peIitP- ~ to the Z-Ine Board of AppeII8 (ZBA) for an
"iDterpretatiOD.'" ~o: v-""'~ with "special ~ reqaesrs." TblIlpp1ic:ation iD<'l>'&od ID.
&.:~i.oam.eDIa1 Alleamcm Poml. (EAP) Put 1 c:Q1\p1eted by petitiaD.ers, Who iDteIted in the spat.e
!or the DID'le of the vril1r1. ~ndnn of off-stteel. parkiDa fac.ilj....... at =q fcny ~In.'" On
1)-"- 26. 1995. the ZBA rebm104 petili.aD...... appli.ell:iaa. withoUt pt'l :t.~1 or c:omidcatiaD;
but after aeveral ~11I1< and court COJIfereDces, die Z8A accc.pted tho app1,...~ OD AprIl 11.
1996, upoa. ~~ IbnWtal1/"""" S"'~Mn of 1Il.1ppU"'~;"''' for siIe pl8n review. Acec:IdiDg
to p"";tV.nm, tbe site pJm made no c:haDps to, 0: in q. way involved, the ,_tn.1 pueel. On or
about Sqltember 16, 1996. &he phnn~ Board, __ as lead agency UDder SBQRA. ~ a
positive dec1atation IIl4 eb~..;fWI tho project u a Typo I Ktkm as re<Q......1IIlde4 by the Boards
eu..Jton....ea1..1 CQl'ISu1faDt.2 'Ibis actfcD by the p1....., Boatd is the JUbject of tbe fh&l e1ic1e 78
p.rgceCdiDg (Crosa So1md. 0: lbe petilion wu filed 011 Oclober 16, 1996-
Despiw the liIiprl",\ the PI.......... Board. ("'...t.....,. the pocess of s&QRA review _ in
November of 1996 re'i"l'II"l- IUblnitte4 a draft scopq cut1inc. After the ".,qu.bd pub& heariD&
the p1....dng Boatd, by leSOlutiClD. ofDeoember 16, 1~ adopted. the mare .............f:l......ive ac:opq
out1iDc prepared by its eIlvirowneatll QODS1J1wlt.s ~14......... theD caauneDcecl a DeW pn""-;"g CI1
lr_ tJf So/ll1ao1d v 0QIlf SOW F.wy SInKc 1M. (Indelt No. 95-16263).
an. Type I '" '1;__ ames tM l'"-....'{I'l'llll tbat die P'Vi :-' poject Js libI)' '" 21aY6 a
~ impd CIIl the eIMl.--. - .. CGUlcI ftClIIb tlI6 p..4~"'l. << an ~..-.. impact
-........"" (6 NYCRR 617.12[&D.
3Seo}U&: iIJ dIe}ln -- by wlidl the *".-=7 14 ~IAM the ~- isIiDs mlattd '" llIe
1'"v~ adiCIl whlch_ '" be W' --dm the cbft !A&...,,1,--.1 bpad. StIr- (DEIS). fIldMi,.
die zaDF of ..1t..~ and..dtl~ sri III'" _a.4 to ...!!.l...;_ or ei.......t~ a4wIa ;"'\P'(U
ScopinJ is m.-~ to pIGri4e Ihe appIic:::m 9it.h p"'- em ........f'" whlch mmt be ......;~. 10
~ the ~""-.,. of 0. leU ~.leYiew cf die DEIS. and '" JWIlde oW"'tuuity for Nl'ly
~ ..-:y ar4 pullic awll"GlllllS of the 90"~ (6 NYCRR. 617.2 lffl).
0.3/31/98
13:51
tt518 i 4130.
LORNA
I
141 0.0.4/0.0.8
-"
CROSS SOUND fERRY SBRVICES,'INC. el,aDO.
v. PLANNlNOBOAltD OP 1HB TOWN OF SOUlHOIJ)
IDdex No. 96-26389; 97-1312
Pap 3
.,
JI1>>-)' 1S, 1997 (CrosI Sra>nd B).
o,n"~io& the two pet~ topther, the ess.,... cl petilf/'lft"'l" pjevux:e is tha1 the
Pl-m'1g Board" issumce of a positiw dec:lII2tiOl:l. (llIereby requiriDg the prepcaliao m . c1raft
ea.ll:QllDl.IlDIal iDIpact stateml"'Q mJ ~<lII of its c:cmsu1tIDts scopiD& oudU -.gperly explllll
dle~ review beJaDcllbat requixecl by tb,ev","-Ipplic:atiaa. cd lite plmfar mcreased
p-w.r "Ibey c:1aim. tbat IIQtwi,-oomg dJe 1iJft;tedmture oflbe app1Jt-.o~ thezeuollS auppo.th.&
~t'$ detemUDatkm ue ..tu.....cous1y .,. ~operJ,y'" clitected fDward a c:haDgc of ~or
~IW ~ afuse II to the wmr ....le service ao the tM""'lnlll pucel. Peti~ CClDteDd,
lbaefcre, lhat the p1....m.,g Board .-.... i1s aulhc:rity m.fbIs maner.
1hc ~...., bas IIOl fDod or aervecl . -J'OAN IIIlII1 retUm in eitbcr pror;v~1 A JrClUP
k:DoWD. as SomhDI4 Citjz .!l: for Safe llosds, IDe.. 'WIll pnte4 leave to ~ II {dp ~, m both
1&<1)1: !""T (crier datecl $eptelln'bcr 11, 1997). Pre&ctly befcze the court aremoCiclP by resp<IL'_t
aD4 m.velllX-~ for dim~......1 cl tbe petW.0II\ II to which the court 1IQti5ed aU pI1'tic:s that
tbD four ~ would. be CClIlSid.ered. siJpnlt,>>"...lIly. ~tlnMt'$ theIl filed. _HIVed. Tft....<Jed
petJ~,,,u of fiIbt"; they que tbat the moli03lS m'lllt be ~..... bee.,. chey "bave been abated
by the servi<<;e of ....-~..... p~Ifif1"," Heo:e the first issue tD be'cWi!:l~ is the ~dlDl que&tico.
of the effect, if my, of the amcclccl ~ upaIl the ~ motians.
t1Dda' ,-~ 244 of me CiW. Practice ~ 1befcaner c:ount=palt d CP1B. 3O.ZS(a), · par1)'
bid. rlgbt tD .......... wilhoallcave widdn 20 daY' after IIIMce of a DOlice of~ addulsed to
die '(lI.e-"'9lIt tmd.1la'ViJl& c1aI1e so. the :m.otiClD. was *abUe4'" (r,.. 5 W ~t,,""'Kcm.-Mmer, New Y ark
avn ~. 11 3025.(6). CPLR 3025(a) ..,;...i....'.,I this riIbL Neve1l1trs. ~ IN'1mi",,-\ quem<lll
of mt-.~ still arises WhmI, fez -.o"lp1e, a p1aiDl:lft1ttYe:& an ~ complaiDllfter the
"__.m.' hu made a motion ad4rlllsecl tD 1be origiDal compJamt. Al'~ the .................t is
1&..peO, II kmlu it is served withill. cme of the CPLll3OZ5(a) lime peDocSs m4 befo1e the motica.
bI$ 'bec<1er;~ (5 W..maJOin.Kam.MilJllr, N.Y. Qv. Prtc. " 3025.06, 302S.07; P,m,l' W'1J7IUIn
CClIII~ lac... lQ ADicl95P, 557 NYS2d 17P (4th Dept 19PO]), case ~ are IIDt UDifoaI1
widI. respect to ~ !he m,ot;t.n .'~..;...~ abmc Scme QOUI1S e=ClDdzrIlA tD hold. II =dcr the
fcxmer pnI~. tbat motious addreaed to the ar:l.V'..1 p1."~ me ~ moot IDC1 DIUIt be
~.... (e.g., UIIII7 l' PoIMr, P6 Miac2ci 571, 40P NYS24363, 364 {SUp 0, M\.iDtOe Co 19781).
Others have betel that dJe ~"I moliao sbQu1.cl be pmc4 or daD.ed baHCl 'IJlOI:I. the "tMeI_y
of the ........-1 ~..lfll (e.g., J'lIlJ'lDr P Eli Hci4t14 en,.. 118 Misc2d 2.53, 460 NYS24 886, 890
{Sup 0, New YClI:k Co 1983] - court ~ cU.~...ift the crigiDal CQI1lp1alDl if &D'ea""" QIle Ji
tmfII!.,j.....~ or "~......iss tbe moticm addret- to tbe pkll"l'I'lg dill DO lon&er all). ODe court lIaS belli
tbat aballllMGt. i.,.. 1Ulamati.c: dGIial of the modnn as mQQl, *,hould be resaideCJ to tbDse Iitn"tinn~
'IPbere the ___w"llDII maD a ~f'lcazlt c:hulge In theDlture of1he actiaD.- {S/uIlnI4Il Zuelo..6rllc
~fIB1 c.rp. " Col4w.U BtmbT c-rrurcW GrrlIII. ltu:., 138 Misc2c! 799,525 NYS2d 541, 54~
[Sup 0, QaeeDS Co lP88]).
93/31/98 13: 51
'5'5161 4130
LORNA
,
II!I 005/006
"
. .
CROSS SOUND PERRY SERVICES, INC. et aDO.
.... fLANNlNO BOAlU) OP nm 1O'Wt'l OF SOtTlllOlJ)
mdcz. No. ~ZQ89; 97-1312
Page 4
n must be Ill: -Tel that 1I~~ spp1ies oII1y to mOlkms addre. M to a p1eItI"", Leo. lD its
lep1~. A ~'I.oa. addmnc:f.to tbe merits ofa dIfm -may DOt be defeated by III amended
p]~ W" "~'?io " MeN~ 73 MiI<<fld 59. 3G NYS2c1342,. 346 [Sup 0. SI1ffo]k Q) 1973)).
Heace tbe real qGeIIiOll in the It'~' matter is 'fIbedIIr the motiQIII me addreaecI. to the ~eDCY
of lbe petilj"".. cr tbe mc:dts of the ",..Inol: thereiD.
The two molj""'" by rapoJlI'I- P1.....mC Boud. at bzougbl ~ to QlLR 7804(f) 8Dll
3211(&)(7) em the ~ that the petiti-. &il to CalC a daim far which relief may be V"....... .In
olber wmds. the ~"V me hn.....;..","" IS ."""0 upcm.1be snfA..;"CI:l)' of tha ~...." Ho....__.
the 11'I'-'" put fCllth Ihetem are datI,. addrelilecl to the merits of !""itW."'S' c1aimJ. As for !he
m"";"'" by tbe iraI.rv_ rap-........ DO _tare is rfi.... _ .."",.,.,lft cme point Dises a stature
of Ifm;""i........ questiaD. the r-mammglrgtlmeDts &0 to tho meri!s of ~. ""Am.....
MOROvar. ccmtta1)' to p-rltVWa' ~^'\ dial the ll1Tl"~ed petitiI:ms assert new ek;"'1: fot
relief, lbe theclI)' pf each aripIal p-titioD. ,........;... inlacllDl1 ttnrh""Pd The -u>~-ts CODSisls
of minuscule "'T"v changes m! raD""lr""""'.lI of scme &at.n.. (for -"l"p1e. reD1cMD1 an
1.V9- from <me IUbparagrapb IZld inocrpcatiDg it iDfD & later aoe). The 0ZI1y new claim is an
aUTri"" of & 'Violation of Town Law '274.... a COJIRrlhtti-u1 questiaa. wl1icb is the &Ubject of yet
......,. 1ICtioD brougbl by peIi~ 8Dll is DOt a pz~ matter for CCI:lliidcatkm in an Inkle 78
!M\,A........dt,.~ga
Tb.e court "0""''''_ that 1IrIdm' the dr......-.... herem. the service of el1ll1decJ peti~"
doas DOt result in .hoot..,.....' of the mociom to -'i....;"" As sraIeCi more fully above, the motiosls Ire
not "addressed to tb& pIM"i"P"; m! tbe _hit ~~ make "Ilo ..1'lSttV worthy of IJUlOri",,-
("e~ D~Uario " MeNd, 5pro.) _ c:enaiDly do IICt iDJlge lbe D&t\Iz'e of tile pr~e""O':Ht'lgF 'tee,
SlaoIDrra & Zacb, M~ kal.t.1 " Col4wll Baabr. $llpl'G). kence tbe DIDfims rllmtJn alive aD4 may
be .......d"-ed II adcbssed to tbe am-flood petitiClllL
:n-_fn.tlQll of the modems DOeCl DClt requIze . ~ 4,,,'-'ou of a. asue.. ID the
mil iDslImce,. IS respr.mdeDr has IIClt z-(JvlCla tiDal A-t ..;..,,1io.a. ClQ peIili- I~ appJir'-"tJ(JIPl. the
irlstarll pc C~l!\p are premature. A tacil.ackIl.owJedJ;m- of prematQrily is iDbcmt in CSFs
5latCDleQ[ fa. owoalioA to the mcdcms tbat it "1la5 alwaya bem williD& to a4joum dleIo proc'-"lt,p
- uutD the P1~ Boazd adopts & 1iDIl cIetenDmalbi lD. this matter." Seocm.d. ~ CSP has
agreed to, m1 bas fzequtudy assured reIpQl"-t and this COIIrt tbat it will submit a dmft IUS.
DOtwi'~"""g the ~ moticas. Heoce pelitiQDCd bav. effedi:vel1 wai'ved any ..mll""'ge to
the ~ takl:D by tbD pb....lftC BaIrd. 1& well.. to ita IWbority. t.....vw.tAIly. it may be ~
tbat UDder SEQRA tbDrc emrs -. ze1atiye1y low tbresho1d. 1'(1' requirma ID. as" (Somly of 1M
~11,.tI1uIt7. I~ " CoIm(Y III StJ,ffolJr. 154 AD2cl179. SS2 NYS2d 138. 140 [2d Dept 1!jg()];
btla4 VaIN P_ COlllptl1q "~'pI1IIln. 104 Amd. 395. 478 NYS2d ~ 928 [2c1 Dept
1984D. FiDaDy. with %eapect to the dispu1e f1Vet 1he D8IUZe of !be . .6.l,-tive ~ Sire Plm"
submitted. by pelitioJzn. ~ch &boWl ~ plaDs 1'(1' the lite which do mvolve the termmal
. '.' 0,3/31/98 13: 52
'5'516 _ 4130
LORNA
-
141 006/006
.
. ..",-
. .
CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICSS, INC. et lIDO.
v. PlANNING BOAiU) OF niB toWN OP SOlTl'HOlD
:rn_ No. 96-26389; 97-1312
PageS
pazce1, dlc evideDee demomlratell tbat po*ltf'W"'S, thzaugh tbeit eouasol, 'l*ifip.Uy aJl'MCl Cbat aiel
"com~rP'ive I:ntegraler1 Sir.e Plm shall be one of the altermtives wilbin the SEQRA review
pmcess."
111 acccrclarlce vtitQ 1be above, dlc JDCltionc by ~ent and inrerYeDOtofaipoOOent II1'e
gnmcd mllhe .mCl:ll5cd pelitkma ale dl~-"'"
Dated: lIAR 2" 6 ""
TO: <3A VA1'H. SWAINE &: MOORE
Wcddwido P1aza
82S !J;Fth Aveoue
New YOlk, New York 10019-7475
Atta:IIeyI for PrapoRd ~.,.,.1'I1terYeID
SouthoJd CitizenS fer Safe Roe4s, Inc.
. .
.
NELSON,POPE
:Sv'-='\ .l {+!JoS- ?
RI<:
PB
& VOORHIS, L~6
ENVIRONMENTAL. . PLANNING. CONSULTING
CHARLES J. VOORHIS. CEP, AICP . ARTHUR J. KOERBER, P:E. . VINCENT G. DONNELLY, P.E
. VICTOR BERT, P.E. . JOSEPH R. EPIFANIA, P.E.' ROBERT G. NEL.SON. JR. P.E.
. CHRISTOPHER W. ROBINSON. P.E.
Francis J. Yakaboski
Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski
456 Griffing Avenue, Comer of Lincoln Street
P.O. Box 389
Riverhead, New York 11901-0203
Re:
Dear Frank:
March 10, 1998
MAR 13 1998
Southold Town
Planning Board
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Meeting of March 4,1998
Revisions to Draft EIS
N&P Project No. 97106
Thank you for your letter of March 10, 1998 regarding the above. Please be advised that Peter
Brown and myself met with Rich Warren, Scott Dobriner, Ron Hill and Adam Wronowski at the
offices of Inter-Science Research Associates on March 4, 1998. The topic of discussion was the
review letter dated November 24, 1997 prepared by this office and adopted by the Town, finding
the Draft EIS to be incomplete.
A key issue remains unresolved - this involves the definition of the Proposed Project. I
maintained that the project is a site plan for the overall property of Cross Sound Ferry. Mr.
Warren was reluctant to concede this as in his opinion, the Proposed Project is the expanded
parking on the Trust Parcel. When I indicated that additional improvements were needed on the
Snack Bar Parcel to inter-connect the Trust Parcel with the terminal parcel, he suggested that the
scope of the project be expanded to the Trust and Snack Bar parcels. I indicated that there is still
a ZBA application pending for reconfiguration of parking on the West Parcel, and pointed out
that all of these factors, as well as my understanding of the change of use, the Planning Board's
position, and the courts directive, lead to the conclusion that the parcel can not be piecemealed,
and should be regarded as one.
I further suggested that it was the change of use that precipitated the need for an overall site plan,
but the action itself is the site plan submission. The site plan was required to address the
adequacy of the facility based on the change of use. Proposed parking on the Trust Parcel was
offered by the applicant as a means to mitigate impact of the change of use, but an overall site
plan submission would still be required regardless of whether the Trust Parcel was proposed for
parking or not. It was concluded that this discussion would not be resolved at the meeting, and
would be the subject of discussion between the attorneys.
1572 WALT WHITMAN ROAO, MELVILLE, NY 11747-2188
(51 BJ 427.56615 FAX (1518) 427.5620
.
.
Cro.. Sound Ferry
Meeting of March 4, 1998
I also suggesled that the proposed parking on the Trust Parcel with interconnection to the
Terminal represents actual physical alteration of the site as proposed by the applicant, and the
balance of the site could be regarded as "as built" for the purpose of the overall site plan
application. The comprehensive development plan would then be provided as an alternative, with
a meaningful analysis of site integration, NYS DOT constraints, wetland/dune area constraints,
etc., based on a more realistic integrated plan. This approach seemed acceptable by Mr. Warren
and Mr. Wronowski.
The remainder of the November 24 letter was reviewed, and clarification/direction was provided
in response to any questions. With regard to traffic, Ron Hill provided a memo outlining their
approach to traffic comments (copy attached). Peter Brown will review this memo and will
provide me with his response to go over with you and the Board. One issue regarding the need to
investigate gaps and side road delays between Greenport and the Cross Sound Ferry terminal was
clarified at the meeting.
Based on the meeting, there is no change from the spirit, intent or content of the November 24,
1997 letter. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information, and please feel
free to call should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
NELSON, POPE & VOORlDS, LLC
Charles J.
cc: Peter Brown, N&P
Bennett Orlowski
Town of South old Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Page 2 of2
Dunn Engineering Asso.es
Consulting Engineers
66 Main Street
Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978
516-288-2480
516-288-2544 Fax
November 24, 1997
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter, and Angel
Counselors at Law
P.O. Box 279
108 East Main Street
Riverhead,~ 11901
Re: Cross Sound Ferry Comments
Dear Mr. Esseks:
In accordance with your request at our November 21, 1997 meeting at the offices of InterScience,
we have compiled a listing of the additional data that must be collected in order to respond to the
comments concerning the Cross Sound Ferry. For ease of review, the comment is presented
followed by our response. Our response includes the reason why the data wasn't collected at the
time of the DEIS. Also, the time frame for the data collection is presented:
Comment, Page 3: Study Procedures. Provide a discussion and hourly tabulation of the existing
parking accumulation at the site and an analysis of the proposed conditions.
Response, Page 3: The response to this comment requires the completion of a parking lot
occupancy survey. This request was not found in the original scope to the
project. If this data needs to be collected, it can not be done until Summer,
1998.
Comment, Page 13: Vehicle Mix, Route 25. Vehicle mix data provided is for weekday only.
Provide vehicle mix on the weekday and for Saturday and Sunday during the
peak ferry activity. .
Response, Page 13: Direct response to this comment requires data to be collected for vehicle mix
during a Saturday and a Sunday. It has always been our experience that the
number of trucks on the roadway during weekday periods is more than on the
weekend. Therefore the use of weekday classifications on the weekend will
present a worst case examination. Additionally vehicle mix, particularly in
.
.
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
November 24, 1997
Fage 2
the amount seen in the weekday data that was collected has little impact on
the analysis. . If larger truck percentages were found, there might be some
cause for concern but this is not the case and we do not believe that weekend
data will show more trucks. In order to get vehicle mix, data should be
collected during the summer months on a Saturday and a Sunday. However,
data could be collected during non-summer months, since the auto ferry is
always active and the truck usage is less susceptible to seasonal variation.
It should be recognized that the vehicle mix has no bearing on the parking lot
expansion, since all truck traffic is destined to the auto ferry.
Comment, Page 49: Seasonal Variation. Please provide justification for the Route 25 seasonal
activity.
Response, Page 49:
Comment, Pages
64 - 72:
Response, Pages
64 - 72:
In order to respond to this comment, additional non-summer data would have
to be collected in order to create a comparison with summer data. This data
could be collected during the upcoming winter and spring. Fall data could
not be collected until the Fall of 1998 although the State has counts for
October 1995.
Quantification of Project Site Generated Impacts Based upon the Level of
Service Calculations. The analyses presented in this section requires revision
based on the comments listed above. The analyses as presently compiled,
indicates that further analysis is required to properly assess the impact of the
CSF traffic. Critical intersection(s) must be studied and any impacts
identified. In addition, mitigation must be provided for all locations which
display a change in Level of Service since fewer gaps will be available at
cross streets and driveways.
In order to respond to this comment, data must be collected at "critical
intersections". However, no critical intersections were identified by the lead
agency in the scoping outline. In addition, no one intersection shows a high
rate of accidents that would lead us to the identification of a "critical
intersection". Also, no traffic signals exist along the entire length of roadway
to restrict the thru traffic on Route 25.
If it is deemed necessary to analyze "critical intersections", first the Town
must designate them, then the data would have to be collected during the
Summer of 1998.
.
.
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
No.vember 24, 1997
Page 3
In addition comments regarding the Noise Study were also examined in order to determine the
additional data required. These comments can be found below:
Comment,
Page A155:
The last sentence indicates the insect activity contributed significantly to
ambient noise levels. Insect activity may therefore falsely elevate the Leq,
as insect activity is not expected during all seasons or during all times ofthe
day when ferry and parking lot activity could cause a perceptible increase
above ambient noise.
Response,
Page A155:
The noise data was collected in mid-September. While insect activity is
indeed not expected to occur during all seasons, it does take place in the
summer months which mark the height of Cross Sound Ferry activity.
During late fall, the winter and early spring insect noise is non existent or
negligible but the additional parking that is the basis of the application will
also be unused. The purpose of the proposed parking is to accommodate
peak demand primarily occurring in July and August and to a much lesser
extent in May, June and September.
The noise data was collected in the nighttime hours because Federal noise
guidelines are most stringent within that time period. The Noise Impact
Study also required data be collected during peak Cross Sound Ferry
operations and sensitive times of the day. The Noise Impact Study addressed
a "worse case" scenario; therefore, additional noise data collection is not
warranted.
It can be seen from the above responses that, although some data could be collected during non-
summer months, a significant amount of new data would have to be collected during the summer in
order to respond to the Town's additional requests. We believe that we have complied with the
Town's scoping requests and that the relevant comments can be addressed without collecting
additional data. Ifnot, the request for additional data will significantly delay the DEIS process.
.
.
Mr. William W. Esseks, Esq.
November 24,1997
Rage 4
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
RONALD HILL, P.E.
Principal
RHllam
L971033
.
.
so d Town Planning Board
5
November 24. 1997
Mr. Crem : Mr. Chairman, I'll offer the following resolution. ~e it resolved
that the Sout id Town Planning Board accept the rep It's
environmental c sultant, Charles Voorhis, date ember 14, 1997.
d s ded. Any questions on the motion? All
'~
ard, Mr. Latha~r. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.
Motion carried. ~
*************** "
SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAl QUAlllY REVIEW ACT
Draft Environmental Impact Status:
Mr. Oriowski: Cross Sound Ferrv - This proposed site plan is to add
additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient.
SCTM# 1000-15-10.1,11.1,15.1 & 3.5. At this time I'd like to make a
motion.
WHEREAS, this Board on July 14,1995 determined that the applicant, Cross
Sound Ferry Services, Inc. was required to seek revised site plan review for its
ferry terminal operation at Orient; and
WHEREAS, an action was commenced to enforce this Board's resoiution to
such effect; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, upon direction of the Court and this Board,
prepared and filed a site plan on April 11 , 1996 which was deemed
incomplete in that, among other things, the appiicant had not included the
entire site in its site plan; and
WHEREAS, this Board required that the applicant submit a site plan
encompassing the entire ferry terminal site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant thereupon represented to the Court and this Board
that "an all-encompassing site plan" would be prepared and submitted on
Juiy 29,1996; and did submit such a site plan on July 29,1996; and
WHEREAS, upon the submission of said comprehensive site plan this Board
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
6
November 24. 1997
commenced the SEQRA review process. determined that this was a Type I
action. issued a Positive Deciaration. and ultimately adopted a Scope Outline
on the 16th day of December. 1996; and
WHEREAS. applicant has submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
purporting to be in compliance with the Scope Outline; and
WHEREAS. this Board and its environmental consultants have reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement submitted by Cross Sound Ferry Services. Inc. on the 15th day of
October. 1997. be and hereby is deemed incompiete; and
This Board finds. among other things. that the site plan submitted with the
DEIS is a plan which has never been submitted to this Board and which plan.
if it had been submitted to this Board. would not have been accepted; and is
not a site plan which encompasses the entire ferry terminal site; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant Is hereby directed to complete
the DE is In accord with the adopted Scope Outline and which revised DEiS
must consider and answer the concerns raised in the report of this Board's
consultants. Nelson. Pope & Voorhis. LLC. which report is dated the 24th day
of November. 1997.
Mr. Cremers: Second the motion.
Mr. Oriowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion?
Thor Hansen: Are we open for comment and questions here. or is that for
you?
Mr. Oriowskl: That's just for us.
Mr. Hansen: We'll have a chance though to talk, won't we?
Mr. Latham: One question from me. It says on our program. "the proposed
site plan is to add additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminai".
What does that mean?
Mr. Kassner: Weli, we have a previously approved site plan.
Mr. Latham: We didn't approve the ferry terminal.
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
7
November 24. 1997
Mr. Edwards: That was for the employee parking site.
Mr. Latham: Well, it doesn't say that. We didn't approve the whole terminal.
I just want to go on record saying that.
Mr. Orlowski: The records will note that that is not exactly what we're
discussing. We're actually discussing the whoie site and the totai site plan.
Mr. Latham: We did approve part of It, not the whole thing. Go ahead Ben.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.
Mr. Ward: I abstain.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward abstained. Motion carried.
Mr. Hansen: Do we have a chance to ask a question or two or make a
comment?
Mr. Orlowski: You can ask a question. What would the comments be? If it's
anything about the DEIS, that is stili being reviewed and we haven't deemed
it complete.
Mr. Hansen: Well that I understood, I think, from when you read your piece
there. But I did read the Voorhis report to you and I do have a question or
two on that but.
Mr. Orlowski: We have a new report from Mr. Voorhis that came in this
afternoon, and It's an updated report and you can get a copy of that
tomorrow morning, probably after 10 o'clock.
Mr. Hansen: Well that's perhaps why your 'Whereases' are different then
they wouid ever have been from the Voorhis report I've seen.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, we changed it to...
Mr. Hansen: This new one is saying, what. I don't understand. Because the
thing that I wanted to ask about is that the first Voorhis report, as I've read
it...
Mr. Orlowski: You'll have to stand up to the microphone.
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
8
November 24, 1997
Thor Hansen: My name is Thor Hansen, and I'm the President of SCSR, As I
read it. said that the ferry would only have to submit a comprehensive site
plan on all four of the properties, all four parcels, as an alternative but not as
the principle, or whatever you call it. the principle submission, And does this
new one change that and make it stronger, because I'm worried if it doesn't
make it stronger that they must do that, I would think we might fall into the
same trap that it seemed to me was set and the Planning Board fell into back
in 1996, at the 29th of July meeting, of accepting a not complete site plan,
You've accepted a very small part of the site pian and said you would get it
worked out in SEQRA, and that hasn't happened, But is this new Voorhis
report stronger?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think the resolution in itself states that there was a
complete site plan at one time and now it does not seem to exist The
Voorhis report, i think will show and make reference that that's what we're
looking for.
Mr, Hansen: I don't know what you're" ,what was the complete site plan that
night of the 29th? There were three of them sitting back here, The one in
the middle was the one that you had rejected three weeks before, And the
one on this side was a concept. it wasn't a site plan, and it was quite clear
that It wasn't And the other one, that was as a sort of as is, And as I recall,
you accepted the one, I'm quite sure, the one in the middle, that was only
on the parking lot, not on the whole operation,
Mr, Orlowski: We never accepted,
Mr, Hansen: Well, you took it for putting into SEQRA. And the words were
"SEQRA, it will all come out in the SEQRA, don't worry about it", and the ferry
has fought that ever since,
Mr. Orlowski: It would come out in the alternatives,
Mr. Hansen: Yes, now all I'm wondering is, is it still to be an alternative that
the ferry must submit only as an alternative a complete site plan on all four
lots?
Mr, Hansen: Well. an alternative to us could be the site plan, It depends on
the decision that we make as lead agency, But they have to submit this
alternative. I think if you go back and recall, they didn't want to do any of
that
Mr. Hansen: I've got a letter from their lawyer, Mr, Whelan, to Mr, Yakaboski,
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
9
November 24. 1997
dated October 2, 1997 in which it says in particular ".this is to Frank
Yakaboski,' Cross Sound objects to any assertion that it submitted a
comprehensive, integrated site plan on July 29, 1996.' They say they didn't.
They did not.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, our resolution is pretty specific and we say that they did.
And that was a site plan.
Mr. Hansen: Which?
Mr. Orlowski: That one that was submitted on July 29,1996.
Mr. Hansen: But there were three.
Mr. Orlowski: That's right.
Mr. Hansen: Which one are we talking about? The one in the middle?
Mr. Oriowski: The one that encompassed".i don't know which side it was on.
it encompassed the whole site.
Mr. Hansen: (inaudible) and it was very clear that night that it wasn't a
complete site plan. it was a concept. And as I recall. the Planning Board
accepted, really, the site plan that was on two lots and you sent all three of
those out to all the State agencies and Interested parties. But, the one that
was accepted, and that again is right in this letter, as I'm sure the Planning
Board minutes for that day will reveal. the Planning Board explained to the
public that the concept plan was just that, a concept and not an official site
plan since it was missing all of the necessary elements for a site plan and that
the Planning Board was going to start the lead agency process based upon
Cross Sound's submission and not the concept pian. Their submission I
would offer, was on parking lot oniy; the new parking lot and the snack bar
lot.
Now, they have never, ever - and since that time they've sued the Town in
fact, saying that you don't have the authority to make them do a
comprehensive site plan. My question to you is, how when you send this
back, are you going to make that clear so they will submit a complete site
pian, a comprehensive on all four iots, because they've never done it yet.
Mr. Orlowski: Well. we're before the judge right now to find this out. The
judge is reviewing the DEIS personally. He will be reviewing Mr. Voorhis
report and the alternatives in this DEIS could be viable documents later on.
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
10
November 24, 1997
Mr. Hansen: I don't quite understand how the judge - it's not my
understanding that he Is reviewing the DEIS, maybe he Is - but I understood
that your action in sending it back meant that it is not ready, the DEIS is not
ready for public comment. Why would the judge be reviewing it if it isn't
even accepted yet? That I don't understand. You did have a hearing
tomorrow, but he's canceled that,
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, he has, and I don't know why, but I was told it was because
he wants to review the DEIS personally.
Mr. Hansen: And he has a copy of this?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Mr. Hansen: Well, that's interesting. I know it's a publiC document, we asked
it to be one. But as I understood it, from the Voorhis report I've seen, it said
in there that it is not ready for publiC review. But you're telling me that he's
reviewing that site plan, that foot thick document...
Mr. Orlowski: He's the judge.
Mr. Hansen: ...which is very incomplete, as you know. You're going to be
sending it back.
Mr. Orlowski: That's right. And we're going before the judge to say that it is
incomplete. We've adopted this resolution basically stating what our
problems are with it, which will go along with Mr. Voorhis new report that
you can pick up tomorrow morning, and hopefully we'll get his attention to
understand these matters a whole lot better. But he is the judge and if he's
reviewing it, and he wants to review it, he can do that.
Mr. Hansen: Well, that's the first I've heard that he's reviewing it.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes, I heard it myself this morning.
Mr. Hansen: Can you tell me who you heard it from?
Mr. Orlowski: From our attorney.
Mr. Hansen: Well, I talked to ours this morning and he knew nothing about
that. Maybe he is.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, that's what our attorney told us so I'm sure he must have
.
.
Southold Town Plannino Board
11
November 24, 1997
told yours the same thing unless the judge is telling two different stories.
Mr. Hansen: Well, he hadn't as of this afternoon. Well, this is very
interesting. I'm just very worried - the thing that has really worried our
group and a lot of us that up to now the ferry has absolutely refused, it
stated right in this letter too, they refuse to say that they ever submitted a
comprehensive site plan. They deny that they did. And it certainiy wasn't
comprehensive, the one that you accepted that night as a Planning Board on
the 29th of July. It was oniy on two lots and that was it. That other was a
concept and the ferry is denying that it was a site plan.
In fact. Mr. Esseks stood up that night and said, 'we can't submit that as a
site plan, it includes Rt. 25. We don't own that.
Mr. Orlowski: Well. I think that this all encompassing site plan, we were toid
wouid be prepared and submitted - all encompassing.
Mr. Hansen: When?
Mr. Orlowski: On July 29, 1996.
Mr. Hansen: I don't think so. The one you accepted was not all
encompassing. It was on two lots.
Mr. Orlowski: Well. I don't know if you want to tell the judge that. but I think
the judge is going to have to iook at and believe what we tell him. We have
accepted that as an alternative and we want to see it as an alternative,
We've asked for it as an all encompassing, and they're going to have to
prOduce it.
Mr. Hansen: Well, that was my real question. Why did you accept it as an
alternative and not demand to get the real one?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, to be perfectly honest, they might have just said forget
about it.
Mr. Hansen: Well then what would you do, go back...
Mr. Orlowski: Well then we'd have another action - I think there's seven or
nine legal actions involved already on this one application.
Mr. Hansen: Well. I'm basically confused right now about what's going on,
having not seen the new Voorhis report. As I said before, I came in here
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
12
November 24, 1997
(inaudible), because of reading the first Voorhis report that you we're going
to be accepting something that seemed to me not very strong, Has he
changed such things as the first one when it says, it doesn't say you must
submit a complete site pian, it says",
Mr, Orlowski: I would suggest that you pick it up tomorrow and review that.
Mr, Hansen: Alright,
Mr. Orlowski: I don't even have it here with us right now.
Mr. Hansen: The way this old one was written is "it should have" " we
recommend", But it doesn't ever say "you must" and it has to be resolved.
It was very weak,
Mr. Orlowski: Well. this process right here is between the Planning Board and
Mr. Voorhis and Associates to produce a document that is a viable
document. Something that we would like to see, including the alternatives
in this DE IS. Being iead agency, we have every right to ask for it, it was, as it
ciearly states here. was presented to us and as It was presented to us I don't
care if it was an alternative or a composite drawing, or whatever you want to
call it. it was put in front of us. And I think we have every right to ask for
that again, so that's what we're going to ask for.
Mr, Hansen: Well, I'm sure you do, And you got the second Voorhis report
that you asked him to do it and make it stronger. is that it?
Mr, Orlowski: Yes,
Mr, Hansen: OK. well the one thing, I was looking at this now, I don't think, I
know they never submitted a comprehensive site plan that nigrlt. It just
wasn't done. It was a concept and it was sitting over there and they denied
it was submitted and some of us stood up and said that isn't complete,
sorry, don't take it, It's the same one you turned down (inaudible) weeks
ago, the one in the (inaudible), And they wouldn't ".the ferry submitted
that (inaudible), That was not comprehensive, If that says in here. in one of
these "Whereas'es". I would submit to you that that's wrong.
Mr, Orlowski: Well, you wouldn't want us to have a comprehensive site plan?
Mr. Hansen: I want it, very much. Ii just want to make sure that,,,
Mr, Orlowski: OK. I would probably suggest that we not fight this issue
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
13
Novernber24,1997
because I think we're on the same track together and I believe that in doing
it this way, in asking for it as an alternative, we have every right to do in the
SEQRA process and like I told you in the very, very beginning, the SEQRA
process in a process that we've all been through, and myself many, many
times, and sometimes to get where you want to go you've got to go in a
different direction than straight ahead, And this is probably the best way to
do it. And this resolution - I guess you can have a copy of this tomorrow too
- pretty well states that. And Chic's report follows it up and before the
judge is finished reading this DEIS he'll have both of them in front of him
tomorrow morning.
Mr, Hansen: Well, I hope you're right because my feeling is that if this
Planning Board does not demand and receive a comprehensive site plan on
all four parcels and have an environmental impact statement done on all
four parcels, you will be violating SEQRA and you will be violating the trust of
the Town. And so I hope that's what you're aiming for and I hope that
you're able to get It, but so far we've gotten nothing out of Cross Sound
Ferry but a very, very incomplete site plan, or you wouldn't be sending it
back.
Mr, Orlowski: That's right. And if we can prove that to the judge the next
time we all sit down together, we might have a lot of support with the judge
sitting there, and that's our intent.
Mr, Hansen: OK, well, thank you very much.
OTHER
Recommendations on Business Uses Legislation
Mr. Orlowski: Moving on, Recommendations on business uses legislation,
Does anybody have a comment here?
Mr, Cremers: We strongly recommend after this law is adopted that re-
consideration be given to revising the format In which the proposed Local
Law is written.
To wit, the references to other sections of the Zoning Code either should be
eliminated and substituted with the actual text, or should be made more
specific by referring to the applicable sub-sections. e.g. ",as set forth and
restricted by Sec. 100-31 A. (1) or Sec. 100-31 C. (5) instead of just See, 100-
31 A. The Board prefers the inclusion of the actual text over a reference in
order to make the Zoning Code more "user-friendly" to the general public.
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
14
November 24. 1997
Mr. Orlowski: OK, we'll send this letter over to the Town Board. Do you want
to make that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Cremers: Yes.
Mr. Ward: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All
those in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the October 6,1997 minutes.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Cremers: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. The November 3,1997 minutes.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Cremers: Second.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried. i have nothing left on my agenda.
Does anyone have anything they'd like to put on the minutes tonight?
Mr. Hansen: I would like to add one other thing. I read this a iittle cioser and
I would submit that your fifth 'Whereas' is inaccurate. You don't want to go
to press with something like this or you're going to be embarrassed. it says
here, Whereas, the appiicant thereupon represented to the court and this
.
.
SOuthold Town Planning Board
15
Novernber24,1997
Board that an all encompassing site plan would be prepared and submitted
on July 29, 1996 and did submit such a site plan on July 29, 1996. They did
not. The site pian that they submitted and you accepted was incomplete.
Mr. Orlowski: Bob, do we have a letter on that?
Mr. Kassner: A letter on what?
Mr. Orlowski: On submitting that?
Mr. Kassner: He did not submit a complete site plan, obviousiy.
Mr. Hansen: It was a concept. And that's a mistake and you shouldn't go out
with something that's a mistake, Benny. That's wrong. And I swear to you
they did not submit a site plan that was comprehensive and complete. And
you better not say that or you're going to be in trouble. Not with us, but it
isn't right.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, if I'm not in trouble with you, I'm half way there, right?
Mr. Hansen: You ought to be accurate, that's all I'm saying. This was not a
complete site plan. And the thing I just read your from Cross Sound says it
wasn't either. They say it was not. They deny that it was complete.
Comprehensive. They object to any assertion that it was comprehensive and
complete. So that's just wrong, you can't send something like that.
And then the next one follows right after, ....whereas upon submission of
said correspondence comprehensive site plan the Board commenced SEQRA
and determined this was a Type 1.' You didn't commence SEQRA on that
site plan. That wasn't a site plan, that was a concept. You commenced it on
an incomplete site plan on two lots, that's it. And Bob Kassner Is nodding his
head.
Mr. Kassner: I'm not nodding my head.
Mr. Hansen: I just wanted to make sure you understand that that shouldn't
go that way, it's wrong. (change tape)
Mr. Orlowski: I'll have to discuss it with our attorney In the morning. I
appreciate your comments but like I said I'll have to discuss that with our
attorney.
Mr. Hansen: Well, good luck. But that I think is true Benny, that is not
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
16
November 24, 1997
accurate, it is inaccurate. Down the line, inaccurate.
Ms. Scopaz: Can I make an observation?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Ms. Scopaz: The use of the term all encompassing site plan should not be
interpreted as being a complete site plan. It shouldn't assume that one
means the other. The term, all encompassing site plan, was deliberately put
in quotes so it must be in reference to a statement that was made either
before the court or in a letter, and that's not the same thing saying that it
was a complete site plan.
Mr. Hansen: Well. if you make that before a court, I will guarantee you that
the ferry's lawyers will stand up and say the same thing they say in this letter
from Mr. Whelan to Mr. Orlowski, ....in particular Cross Sound objects to any
assertion that it submitted a comprehensive, integrated site plan on July 29,
1996. They deny that they did. And I was sitting here and I deny that they
did too. But they're going to stand up in court...Esseks will say you didn't do
it
MS. Scopaz: It's possible that they will. What are you suggesting that we go
aiong with every (inaudible)?
Mr. Hansen: I'm saying that this ought to be accurate. It wasn't a
comprehensive, compiete site plan.
Unknown: What if you were to add 'concept.?
Mr. Hansen: It was a concept but it wasn't a site plan.
Mr. Orlowski: You're going to have to allow us to talk to our attorney. I have
gone over this with our attorney today, before we made this resolution. He
felt at that time very confident going before the judge with it. I'm surprised
that you would be against it, or bringing this out...
Mr. Hansen: I'm trying to tell you that it's inaccurate. You'll have troubie if
it's inaccurate.
Mr. Orlowski: I think you're looking at it as verbatim and word for word.
We're looking at it just like we've always stated. We want a comprehensive
site plan, alright? We felt we've seen a comprehensive site plan and one was
presented and put before us. Now, he can say whatever he wants, but once
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
17
November 24.1997
a document is put in front of us, we feel that it's a document that we want
to see again.
Mr. Hansen: But everybody stood up that night and said that is not a site
plan, that's a concept. And everybody agreed.
Mr. Orlowski: Maybe a concept could be reality.
Mr. Hansen: Well, I'm sorry but that's not what ...you accepted the one in
the middle that was an incomplete site plan.
Mr. Orlowski: We didn't accept anything. We put something in a document
that at that time we had to put in the document. but alternatives, we can
ask for any alternative, including that comprehensive site plan, or what he
called a comprehensive site plan the last time around. Being lead agency we
have the ability to ask for a lot of things in this process before we even
deem it complete. And hopefully with the judges support and knowing that
with our attorney telling him that this is what we're looking for, we'll be able
to get that. He knows we wanted it all the time. To be honest, it's funny he
didn't just turn around and say, well forget it I just won't do anything. Then
what do you do?
Mr. Hansen: Who are you talking about. the judge?
Mr. Orlowski: No, Cross Sound.
Ms. Wachsberger: We go for an injunction if he does that.
Mr. Orlowski: We tried that the first time.
Mr. Hansen: inaudible.
Mr. Orlowski: Well. maybe this will put us on good ground for one.
Mr. Hansen: I don't know. It feels to me like we're walking on eggs here.
Freddie Wachsberger: If i could put in just (Inaudible), maybe it would just be
to word It to say that you're asking for the comprehensive site plan, rather
than to say that you're going back to one you got because I think we all
stood up at that meeting and said don't accept this, it isn't complete. It
isn't a complete site plan. So maybe wording could say flesh out the
concept site plan, or something like that.
Mr. Orlowski: I think we're fleshing it out right here.
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
18
November 24, 1997
MS. Wachsberger I think Thor's questions it because one knows that Esseks
will jump on it. The one (inaudible) that I wanted to put in on why this is so
important is that in fact there never has been a SEQRA done on that site at
all. I mean, here we have one of the largest operations in Southold Town in
one of the most sensitive places in Southold Town where we have the
potential of it at anyone time, 700 or so cars sitting on a piece of property
where the aquifer is only about 7 feet below ground level and where there
well is aiready polluted on the terminal.
And this is such a sensitive area, and I think nobody understood at the
scoping session, from outside, that there never had been any SEQRA review
on that property before at ail. As a matter of fact it was one of the things
they asked for at the scoping session was the history on the environmentai
reviews on that property. There is no history. So not only Is it important
because it is Southold Town wanted to ask for it but it's crucial because it's
the first environmental review that's ever been done on that property, which
I think would startie a lot of people,
Harold Watson: I hesitate to open my mouth, but I am Harold Watson, also
from SCSR, I came here tonight to say I think that you're trying very hard to
do a good job for us and I think that we want to support what you're doing
very much. Reading through that hideous document, i found that there was
a lot of attention given to points that I had raised a year and a half ago,
There was a lot of attention refuting a lot of points, but I do not think that
the EIS had anything to do with the site, It really had to do with refuting the
points that we've been raising.
And I think that whatever you do, do not accept that document as is or any
revision of it until you make sure that the inaccuracies and the fibs and
everything else that are involved In that document are taken out of it
because that will become a record for the future in 20 years when we rlavc
to do another SEQRA on that site and there are so many inaccuracies tl"lat
have been established in that document that you shouldn't even talk about
accepting a partial form of that document, You should say that you've qat
to make this document honest,
There are absolute dishonesties in that document that are so clearly visible
to my reading of it - and I haven't sat down and analyzed it in any kind of
technical way - that you are right in taking the action that you're taking, I
think that we all have fears because we know that you're dealing with a huge
opponent and someone who will fight you as much as you can fight them.
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
19
November 24.1997
But I say what I said a year ago that if you make it a fuil complete site plan,
you have a state and federal government who wiil become supportive of
you. If you accept it In any kind of segmented form, as their own indication.
it says they only need Southold Town, Trustees, and DEC permits, then you
are going to have to live by their word, which is the way we've been having
to do up until now. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Any comments from the Board? 1'i1 entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Mr. Edwards: So moved.
Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers.
Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
adjourned at 8:10 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted
~~
/
Martha A. Jones
Secretary
"
/ ('
wSl<CJr., Chalr~
.
-
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chainnan
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWAlIDS
GEORGE RITCIDE LATHAM, JR.
RICHAlID G. WAlID
Town RaJl, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RfCEJVED
NOV 2 5 1997
November 25, 1997
SclI6lId Town a.ll
William Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter and Angel
108 East Main St.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry
SCTM# 1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5
Dear Mr. Esseks:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a
meeting held on Monday, November 24, 1997:
WHEREAS, this Board on July 14,1995 determined that the applicant, Cross
Sound Ferry Services, Inc. was required to seek revised site plan review for its
ferry terminal operation at Orient; and
WHEREAS, an action was commenced to enforce this Board's resolution to such
effect; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, upon direction of the Court and this Board, prepared
and filed a site plan on April 11, 1996 which was deemed incomplete in that,
among other things, the applicant had not included the entire site in its site plan;
and
WHEREAS, this Board required that the applicant submit a site plan
encompassing the entire ferry terminal site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant thereupon represented to the Court and this Board
that "an all-encompassing site plan" would be prepared and submitted on July
29, 1996; and did submit such a site plan on July 29, 1996; and
WHEREAS, upon the submission of said comprehensive site plan this Board
commenced the SEQRA review process, determined that this was a Type I
action, issued a Positive Declaration, and ultimately adopted a Scope Outline on
GREG
.
[4J U()~
~BA(.E"
NELSON, FtOPE & VOORHI6. !..L.C
!!N\rIIllCNM'WT.l.. ~ "'I..ANNtlolt!: . !::ON;':..'(..'P,...o
C~A"!,.U J. VOORM1S. CE~ "Iep. A~T"'UR J, KOeFla(". ,DE. . VINCeNte. o';;r...'NI:::..:..t. P.li.
. \t1::TDA 9'AT. "t. . JO'$tl"tt 1\. e'lIt,.HI/t., ~'.' FleSiRT (3:.NE:l..SOl'O. JR. ;o.~
. CHAI!iTO"h(A W.I'IODINSON,I'.E.
November 24, 1997
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Town ofSouthoJd Plll.nnins Board
c/o Francis 1. Yakaboski
Smith, Finkel$tein. Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski
456 Griffing Avenue, Comer ot"Lineoln Strcct
P.O. Box 389
Riverhead, New York 11901-0203
NOV 2 4 1997
!"-"'"'-"-'.'
Re:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Review of Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
N&:PProjectNo.97106
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Please be advised that we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
above refereneed projeet received by the Planning Board on behalf of the applicant, Cross Sound
Ferri' Services, Inc (eSF). The document consists of three (3) volumes, noted as foiilo,,",s:
· Draft Environmental Impact Statement
. Appendic:e.s for the Draft Envircnmentallmpaet Scalement
· Traffic Impa<:t Study (or Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Exp3.llsic1n
The Draft EIS and Appendices are dated October 1997. and the Tr2fii<: Impact Study is dated
September 1997. The lirst volume of the Draft EIS contains. Proposed Site Plan fi)f the project
prepared by John 1. R.1ynof with a last revision date ofSeptembet.17. 1997. :
This review is intended to determine the scope and adequacy of the document for the purpose of
public review. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) and the predecessor company Charles
Voorhis &: Associa.tes, Inc. was contracted by the Town of Southald Planning Board as read
agency to assist with the State Environmental Quality Re\;ew (SEQR) administratiol1 and review
o( the Cross Sound Ferry application, including recommendation for issuance o( a Determination
of Significance (Positive Dee\aration) and the preparation of a. SEQR Scoping Outlin,~ to establish
the scope and content requirements of the Draft EIS. The subject Draft EIS has been reviewed in
consideration of the SEQR Seoping Outline issued by the Planning Board as lead agency and
dated December 16, 1996, and with knowledge of meetings, lettcrs and associated seoping
process issues and documents. Traffic review was completed by transpo"ation engineers of
572 .......Al..T WHITMAN "OAe. MeJ.........Il..~E. NY 11747-2.o:;le
(~1 B) d27-5Se:5 "'AX r~ 141 4a"'.~ecO
11 .2--1/U7 15"--15
'5'51.; H.JlI
GREG
.
I4i OOJ
C "'II Sound 'err,.
D..1t &IS a..j.,.
Nelson & Pope, LLC, and other aspe~t8 of the reView were completed by environmental
professionals of Nelson, Pope &: Voorhis, LLC.
At thi6 time, we believe that th~ document is not consistent with the SEQR Seoping Outline and
further contains factual errors, omissions, and required clarification in order to constitute an
acceptable public review document "lIlder SEQR. If the Planning Board is in !,greemem, we
suggest tnat this review be directed to the applicant for revision based on the folbwing specific
comments:
DRAfT EIS
p. iii Definitions of Key Terms. Several definitions of key terms arc incorrect or incomplete
and should be corrccted as follows:
Proposed Action; The proposed action is the submission of a site plan for thl: Cross Sound
Ferry terminal, as a requirement of the Planning Board and the court, to address the
change of use or intensity of use on the SIIbject Cross Sound Fac:ility. The particular
change of use that resulted in the need for a site plan on the ov~rall facility was the
introduction of the high speed ferry, Sea Jet. The applicant has in addition, proposed to
expand the Cross Sound Facility [0 include the Trust Parcel, in anticiplLlion that this
addition would alleviate parking issues that have caused congestion a~d operational
probl~ms along NYS Route 25 and the terminal. This is a voluntary remedy that may
address some of these issues, but does not preclude the need for an over~Jl site plan as
required by Article XXV, Section 250 of the Southold Town Zoning Code, the Planning
Board and the court due to the change of use or intensity of use. Even if the application
for the Trust Pareel were not part of the application, an ov~rall site plan .....ould be required
for rea50ns outlined above. The definition omits the ZBA application for increased
parking on the West Parcel, and omits rhe Site Plan application which includes
modifiutions on the Snack Bar Par.:el.
Proposed Site Plall; The Proposed Site Plan defined on Page iii and included as a pull-out
in the Draft alS, has never been submitted to [he Planning Board and is now first being
introdueed as part of this Draft EIS. This is nOf the action or the sile plan ,,,,hick resulted
in the requirement of a Draft EIS.
Project Site; The project site should be defined as including the overall Cross Sound
Ferry Facility, as the overall facility is under revie..... based on the ch3!lge of use or intensity
of use.
Cross Sound Facility, The definition of the Cross Sound Facility omits an additional tax
parcel owned by Cross Sound and adjacent to and part of thc facility. specifically thl!
underwater land parcei scm No. 1000-15-9-16.
p.1: Table ofCon/ents. The review and organization of the document would benefit from the
inclusion of a List of Figures. as well as a List of Tables.
Pace 2otl2
11 2~. Si IG-J5
e.)lt3 i:::7' ~1.J!I
GREG
'4ioo.\
.
.
C~I1lO' SolI.." Feny
n...tt lIS flel/kw
p. 6
BQckground and History The chronology beginning on Page 6 contain:; a number of
errors and omis~iOM that ue pertinent to the baclcground and history of thl! applications.
The follo"';n$ changes are required:
November 7. 1995; Please amend to reflect that the building permit al'pli<;ation also
included the West Parcel, SCTM No. 1000-15-9-10.1.
April II, 1996; The summary' of this application should note that the site plan was
submitted as a requirement of the Planning Board and undcr direction of the cautl:. The
plan that was submitted was identified as a "Preliminary Site Plan" not a "Site Plan" as
required. The Long RAP accompanying the application was in fael the previous ZBA
EAF, and was not specific to the required site plan. This initial submission which included
the Trust Parcel and the Snack Bar Parcel was found to be incomplete.
July 8. 1996; A major milestone involving a Public Hearing on the Site Plan, is omitted
from the dlronology.
July 9, 1996; A major milestone involving a written request for a comp;Chc,nsive site plan
from the Planning Board Chairman to Cross Sound via appl/tAnts attorney, is omitted
from the chronology.
July 11. 1996; A major milestone involving the representation of applicants attorney to
the court that an integrated, comprehensive plan covering all of Cross Sound's parcels was
in preparation and would be submined to the Planning Board on July 29, B>96. is omitted
from the chronology.
July 29, 1996; The chronology incorre\;(ly indicates that the comprehensive: site plan was
submitted as a "courtesy" An overall site plan is required by Article XXV, :Section 250 of
the SOllthold Town Zoning Code. the Planning Board and the court due to the change of
use or intensity o(use. The terminology is not consistent; the chronology indicates that an
"overall integrated concept plan" was submitted; however, the plan received by the Town
is identified as an "Alternative Integrated Site Plan".
p. 11 Project Design and Lt:ryout. The project site is identified as the 2.47 !Icre Trust Parcel.
The list of major milestones contained on Page 6 indicates that the pending site pIan
application submitted April II, 1996 is "to ~reate new parking on the Trusl Parcel and in
increase in the number of existing available parking spaces on the snack bar parcel".
These inconsistencies should be reconciled in consideration of comments relating to the
chronology noted above. The project site should identil'y the overall Cross Sound Facility,
and the proposed project should be revised to indude the Snack Bar parcel.
p. J 3 Existing and Proposed Park/lrg. Some indication should be provided n!garding the
adequacy of the proposed project to meet the demand for increased parking The parking
need should be established based on employees and ridership. It is noted on Page 21. that
a crew of appro;ocimately 100 workers is needed during the busiest season. and Cross
Pag.3 af 11
11 ~~ "97 10'~6
'5'5113 7'27 .tlJO
GREG
~(J(J5
.
.
Croll Sound Ferry
>>,..n 11$Il..te..
Sound employs 130-210 persons; however. it is not indicated if these employees park on
Long Island or Connecticut.
Parking design should be described more fully including; use of curb ~ltops, striping,
access, aisles and circulation, 3.$ per the scoping outline. Parking operation ~houJd be
described as per the scope. including traffic management procedures. attendants, and any
~rtinent operational information.
p. J J Existing and Proposed Re~harge. The drainage desien is difficult to understand based on
the information provided and should be explained more fully in the docunlent The text
does not appear to be consistent with the site plan. as it makes reference' to EI centrally
located french drainage basin. The ~ite plan and drainage calculatiOns' in the Appendix
seem to make reference to many trenches and drainage units. A cross sectilon of a typical
proposed drainage system would be useful. Reference should be made to the process of
Town drainage revie'\>{ for adequacy of the system to contain runoff
p. 15 Existing and Proposed Lighting and Landscaping. The reference to the Visual Resource
Assessment and Landscape Design Narrative is confusing as it reference:1 Tim Rumph,
Landscape Architect, when the report in the Appendix WllS prepared by Araiys Design
L.A, P.C. The proposed landscaping design should be reviewed to determine if it
contlicts with the proposed gravel trench area on the west side of the parking area.
The Conceptual Planting Plan dces not replace the need for a landscape plan Ihat would
specil)r density, size and location of plant materials for landscape enhancemE:nt.
The location and orientation of the lighting standards should be described a.~d depiCted On
the site plan.
p. 18 Table of Jurisdictioll. A tidal wetlands permit is required from New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); however, an appli:cation is "Not
Submitted at this Time" according to the Dr;!.ft E15. An application should ',e made to the
NYSDEC so that ample consideration will be given to the Draft EIS during the review
process.
p. 22 Geology: EListlng COlldllJon. Subsurface. COII/poSitiQ/I and TJridmlt.u. Sl,me indication
should be given to whether the loamy silt between I and 3.5 feet po~es a constraint to soil
I~chins capabilities.
p. 28 Geology: Allticipated Impact. Subsurface. It appears as though drainage systems will be
located within loamy silt - some discussion of the adequacy of soils for leaching should be
provided.
The impact of removal of soil for drainage should be discussed including. quantity.
disposition. and expected impacts from this activity.
P.~. ~ .r 12
11 ::: 4, 97'
16:..7
~'H6
-.-
,- ,
-1130
GREG
4:: (1)6
.
.
';ro.. Sound Ferry
Dr." lIS R.\.i....
p. 29 Geology: Antic/patlld Impact. Surft1C11. The statement "Thllre will be no impact to the
offshore, littoral zonc because the projcct docs not extend to beach [sicf'. should be
supportl!d with a statement of the intended setback, method of control (i.e. mitigation
using hay bales along Coastal Erosion Hazard! ~a boundary), and reference to required
permits should any additional sctivity occur in tnls area.
p. 31 W4ter Resources: Existing Conditio//. GrolJndwater. The statement" . ,:he water table
below the subject property is situated at e depth of 7.8 feet" should note the lceation of
the test hole as the elevation ofweter beneath the site is expected to vary given the size of
the site and hydrologic dynamics.
p. 33 Suffolk County Deparlment of Health SlIrvi!;es Waler Analyses. For c1arit~' in reading by
the public, please indicate that result values are reported in the same units as Met or Al..
Please also indicate MCL or Ai values lITe reponed as per SCDHS laboratmy data sheets
contained in the Appendix.
p. 46 Water Resource.!: Existing Condition. Drainage. All reference to potential natl,lr~1
coUel;tion areas are based 00 the map. Please indicate if field inspections were condul;ted
to determine potential for lo.;a.lized ponding and drainage issues not identifiable on the
tTlllp.
p. 47 Water Resources; Exisling Condilion. Flooding. The site is noted as lying in flood zones
Zone V8. Zone A1 anc;l Zone B . please indicate jurisdictional review and special
requirement& of these zone5 10 the proposed project. if applicable.
p. 48 WaleI' Resol/rces: A1IllcfJJalw Impacts. Effect of the on-site runoff The storm event
capacity of the drainage systems should be specified, and some iodieat.:on should be
provided regarding the adequacy of these systems to retain lunolf consistent ",ith NURP
recommendations.
Seasonal variation of groundwater on the site itself is not well defined in rhe Draft EIS.
which notes seasonal changes oras mUl;h as "several feet during a year". n,e depth oftoe
stormwater leaching systems should be noted with respeet to groundwater, and th"
potential for groundwater to intersect these systems thereby reducing! stclrage capacity
should b. discussed.
p. S5 Terrestrial and Aquati!; Ecology: Existing Conditions. Wetlands. The statement. '1'he
project does aooear to fall within the NYSDEC jurisdiction" [emphasis added]. should
clearly indicate that a permit is required as indicated on Pace 18 of the Draft EIS.
p..58 Tran.sportalton: Ezisting Conditio" & (A) Anticipated Impacts. The Traffic Impact Study
ineluded as an Appendix was reviewed in detail and comments are provide':: in a separate
section below. All changes in study methodology and/or conclusions resulting from
revisions should be accuratelv reflected in the text of the Draft E1S.
,
Pice S or 12
_... :2 J, ~'17
1 G . ..;
'5'.')10 727 .J,lJO
GREG
!iJ 007
.
.
1:1'011 SoUlld F trrY
Droft 21S hvl.';"
p. 6J Land US6 and Zoning: Existing Condition. Existing Non-Conforming Uses 0/1 the Pl'ojec/
Site. The document should indicate if other non-conforming uses exist on the overall
project site.
p. 66 Land Use and Zoning: E:riSllng COtldWons. COllformance of the Proposed Action to
Existing Land Use Pkms. LWRP. Coastal policy 25 deals with the overaL scenic quality
of the Cgastal area. The concluding sentence regarding this policy indicates, ". . . with
respect to the siles history and its ellisting condition, the prOposed site plan could be
considered an enhancement and ihould be determifled consistent with CO~lal Policy 25".
The establishment of parking areas, aisles, lighting, drainage and occupancy by as many as
155 cars, is not considered an enhancement to overall scenic quality as <:ompared with
rural open space character, agricultur3.ll.lse and/or vacant land. It is noted that the use of
the south part of the site for dredge spoil will not change based on our understanding of
the proposed project. This policy analysis requires more discussion in order to justifY the
conclusion.
p. 8i Land Use and Zoning: Existing CO/lditioll!i. Confol'/lu11Ice of the Pl'oposed Action to
Existing Land Use plans. Orient LandmCll'K Dllsignatioll. A statement is provided that
the ". . . proposed action does not include the Snack Bar pilrce:1 . . ."; how(:'.'er, Page 6 of
the document indicates that the Snack Bile !-weel is part of the pen.jing site plan
application. The discussion should be expanded to include potential impact considerations
regarding the overall project site. Section d) on Page 85 should also be consistent as well
as any other similar references in other sections of the document.
p. 82 Land Use and Zoning: Anticipated impact. Impact 011 Land Use. Impoct all Zoning. As
per the scoping outline. this section should include a discussion of potential I ighling impact
(diffuse and direct) on adjacent land.
From a land use impact perspective, suppon should be: provided in a narra':ive: discussion
concerning the use of a residentially toned parcel for parking purposes. The discussion
should include a review of each adjacent land use with a statement of the plJtential impact
of the proposed project on the adjacent use. This information was rcquested in the
seoping document.
From a zoning impaet perspective, the impact and precedent setting natun: of the action
should be explored with respect to expansion of a parking use associated with the existing
MIl ferl] terminal. into an adjacent R.80 low density residential zoning district.
Page !~ indicates that. ". . the evaluation of the impacts of the prOPOSi,o action as it
relates to the zoning on this sitll' will be conducted by the Town Zoning Bo~,rd of Appeals
during the course of the review of the application currently pending before them and
therefore C3n not be discussed in this DEIS". The ZBA is an involved agancy under
SEQR and therefore relies on documentation contained in the Draft EIS to make their
findings and decision. Ac<::ordingly, the impact of the: project upon land use and zoning
Poe' , of 1l
" :;J n~
. -, - J~:
-es:_ '3 727 .a.~il)
GREG
ii1J 008
.
.
t;'r'OSI So..nd FelT)'
Droll lIS R..I....
issues is required to be discussed in the Draft EIS. The statement noted above should be
removed alld the appropriate information provided.
p. 86 Community Services: Existing Conditions. Fire Protf!cticJII within th.. Ori".'" Communtty.
The seoping outline requires an account of any r~trictions which may exist on freight
~hippillg of ha.z:l.rdou~ m.tterialsi however, this inrormation is not provided.
p. 90 COnlmunity SeM/iells: Antlcipat,d Impact, Anticipated Impact on Fire Protection. In
order to maintain a safe l;ondition on the project site. and l;onsistent with 'the Fire Chiefs
recommendation and the applicants intent, it is recommended that strongt:r language be
provided regarding the location and timing of the installation of a fire well on the subject
site. The applicant may wish to make this part of the current project descrip,tion.
p. 93 Visual Resources: Anticipated Impact. Please indicate if there will be a viSiJal impact due
to illumination of the land surfllce and/or diffilse lighting.
p. 94 Historic/Pre-His/oric R2sOtJrces: aisting Condll/on. The document ghOlJld indicale the
significance of any of the existing historic structures on the overall project ;lite, as per the
sropin& oUlline.
p, 97 Noise ReSOUT"s: aisting CondITion. A/ltic/pated Impact.. The Noise Impact Study
included as an Appendill was reviewed in detail and comments arc provided in a separate
$ection below. All changes in study melhodolo~ and/or conclusions .resulting from
revisions should be aCl;Urately reflected in the text of the Draft EIS.
It is noted that Paie 97 of the Draft EIS indicates ambient noise was dett:rmined at the
property line of Ihe nearest receptor; however, the location of ambient noise data
collection points is not spedfied in the Noise Impact Study.
p. 98 ClD1IUlative Impacts. The definition used in the pre-amble to this section s'hould reflect a
SEQR related definition of cllmulative.
IdentifY the rationale for discussion of cumulative impacts, and prOVide a conclusory
statement based on this rationale and analysis.
p. 102 Mitigation Measur~s to Minimize EJrvironmental1mpact, Provide mitigaticn for removal
of soil for installation of drainage systems.
Any additional mitigation or changes in mitii!tion that are necessary as a result of revised
impact analysis should be reflected in this section.
p. JOi Mitigarioll Measures. Buffers and Barriers. The method for installing shields or other
physical barriers to restrict transmission of construction noise, should be stated. This
comment is extracted from the Noise Impact Study which is reviewed separately.
POlO 1 oell
..2..1,fI7 10:..t8
~518 727 -11.)1l
GREG
14I 009
.
.
Crvn SGwul "en')'
Dran J:IS Kni."
p. 113 Adverse Environmrmtal Affects that Cannot be AI/oided if /he Projtct is Implemented.
Additional adverse environmental affects should be noted as necessary based on the
revised impact lUlalysis. Areas which may require liSting in this sectic'n include; soil
removal and const.n.Jction impacts, impact on transportation systettlS, impact en
community noise levels and land use impacts due to precedent.
p. 116 Alternatives The Draft EIS should provide a more detailed analysis of the inteKrated site
plan. Seoping documents and Planning Board input are clear in stating thtcf an integrated
site plan of Ihe overllll Cross Sound Ferry site is a preferred alternative. Since the
proposed project has not been modified to /"tllect integrated site design, an honest
evaluation of the integrated site plan alternative i, required. It is rece,mmended that
efforts be made to develop a concept that will coordinate site use, improve safety,
circul~tion, 3CCeS$, and long.t~rm cbjcctivC$ of the Planning Board and p'roject sponsor.
Reasonable efforts should be mad~ to resolve those issues bulleted on Pag.es 116-117, in
order to prepare an integrated plan, Contacl with NYSDOT toward achieving integrated
site design should be documented. It ~hould be noted that possible coordinated
improvements do not need to occur all at once but could be phased. Mitigation for
pedestrian safety, coordination with the Snack Bar parcel referenced on Page 6 as well as
in Alternative .B (Page 118), need for cross access from Route 25 through the Snack Bar
parcel to the Trust Parcel, and other aspects of overall facility use, all amplifY the need for
integrated site design. A realistic plan for integrated design should be prepared and
submitted, and used as a basis for analysis This request is consistent wilh the scoping
documents, meetings and input from the Planning Board.
p. 118 Alternali,'es. Alternative Parldng Lot SiZt!. Tho: combination of the Snack Bar and Tn..st
Parcels is discussed in this alternative; however, based on Page 6, this is actually the
pending site plan application under consideration. The integration of these "ites should be
provided in graphic form and discussed and analyzed as the proposed project consistent
with the pending site plan application.
. APPtl'lJ)lCES FO~ THE DRAFT tIS
Noise Imoact Studv
A-153 E:risting eOl/dr/toll. The second paragraph indicates ". . . noise readings were performed
in the vicinity of the two sensitive receptors in the study area, identified as the two
residences on the north side of Route 25 opposite the feny property". Figure: B is
intended to present the locations at which the readings were taken, howevl,r. each house
itself is identified in the llgure. Ambient noise levels should be determined based on
readings at the residential property Ii lie, a~ the use area of adjacent residents includes yard
areas.
A-l.15 Er/Sling Condition. The statement, "As can be seen, ambient Leq readings of 53 ..nd 54
dBA prevail during times orlow activity at the ferry. . .", is not supported by Table A.
which does not indude Leq levels below 54.
pac. . of n
U. 1-i. r,-
ti3: -'.8
~-ll' -1\-
u:)_.~ :_1
.n.):}
GREG
'€J 010
.
.
C~. Sound Ferry
DraR !IS ani...
The last s<:ntence indicates that insect activity conlributed significantly te! ambitmt noise
levels. Imect activity may therefore falsely elevate the Leq, as insect aetivity is not
expected during all seasons or during all times of the day when ferry lmd parking lot
activity coijld cause a perceptible 'Increase above ambient noise. This issue should be
resolved.
A-iS7 Table A. The method of determination o(Lcq should be indicated, includ:ing. the date of
readings, the number of readings, the t'requency of measurementS, etc. Were relldinli\s
taken at a time when the Snack Bar parcel parking area was being utilized.
A-159 Parking Lot Noise. The statement, <'This noise impact is generated hy the e:O:fslIng
operation, .....hich is of considerable greater magnitude than the expected increase due to
the proposed action." is not supported. The parking lot is nearer to the receptors
(par!icululy Receptor #2) than the current operation. The next paragraph in the report,
which cone!udes that the imp(lct is e:>:pected to be less than 3 dBA, is not supportcd.
If necessary based on analysis, please provide a method of mitigation of sile generated
noise.
A-159 Traffic Noise. Please provide a reference for the relationship between traflie noise and an
increase 00 dBA
A-161 Constroctioll Noise. Please discuss how shields or other physical barriers will be used to
limit construction noise,
Tlu.mc IMPACT STUDY
The following is a page by page discussion or the review orthe Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
by Dunn Engineering Associates (DEA) for the Cross Sound Ferry project. Based on this review
it appears that the analysis performed by DEA cloaks the potential impaets assodated with the
CSF traffic. Det3iled comments arp. provided below based on page numbers fr,em the Traffic
Impaet Study:
p. 3 Study Procedures. Provide a discussion and hourly tabulation of the eJ_isting parking
accumulation althe sile and an analysis of the proposed conditions.
p. 6 Description of Access for the Site and Imemal Road Circulatioll. A skelch of the
",xi sting and proposed parking and staging areas would be extremely usefill in reviewing
the document.
Plc::ase provide a description of parties having right to access the northerly right-of-way, as
well as boundaries and deed restrictions associated with this right-of-way, as per the
seaping outline.
p. 7 Roule 25, Existing Conditions. Provide source for 1996 data. ClarifY MDT and ADT.
The discussion ofNYSDOT volume data and summer volume data is difficult to follow.
Po!:" 9 .r 1l
11 ,21 97
1 G . 5;)
""'~ 1 J~
u.)_:)
-~
727
.1->0
GREG
I.tJOll
.
.
C..... $o.."cI rorry
O...tt US RoYI...
The narure of traffic issues. parlcing issues and concerns should be indicate,d in this section
Please discuss heavy truck traffic:, Boy Scout outings, etc.. as per seoping outline.
p. 9 Cross Sound F<<ny Sl!rvfces Trqffic versus Background TrQjfic. Provide computations
llI1d source of the data fer the calculation of Cross Sound Ferri traffi.c. Provide the
oceupanC"i factor and its source. Outing the computation of the exlstine CSF traffic what
was the capaeity of the hoats? Based on review of Figures 2.1, it is noted that the Orient
terminal traffic is 3 major contributor to the volume during most of the dl'Y; IIowever, the
text indicates the ~ntribution of Orient terminal traffic is ~minimalH. The traffic study
mould include and c1ariJY this information~
p. 13 Vehicle Mir, Route 25~ Vehicle mix data provides i$ for weekday only. Provide vehicle
mix on the weekday and for Saturday and Sunday during the peak ferry activity.
p. 14 Accident Summary. As per the August 18, 1997 meeting with DEA and N&P in
attendance, provide Poli~e Oepartment Accident Data to supplement SASS data. The
definition of non-reportable accidents should reviewed and determined if it is correct~ If
so then clarify the Table 3 dBSCription on Pa~e 16.
p. 15 AccIdent Rates. Please indicate the nature of improvement$ perfomled during the
NYSDOT project to improve the traffic accident rate. provide a discussior.l.
p. 16 1996 Report Accidents. There seems to be an aecident severity problem as well as an
issue with drivers falling asleep.
p. 18 7 Day Traffic Volume Counts for Route 15 Immediately West of the Prc.posed Project.
As indicated on Paie 57, the ferrj' lervice increased from 1996 to 1997. The 1996 traffic
data collected needs to be adjusted to account for this situation.
p. 28 A~'ailability of Public Transportalioll. Please indicate the ridership of the S-92 bus, if
known. What are the travel times to intervening points (Tanger. Riverhead. Greenport)?
Compare cost of the Trolleys of Long Island with the ferry walk on and drive on fares.
p. 30
p. 40 Trip Passenger and Vehicle Dala. In regards to the vehicl. occupancy of the CSF, there
are discrepancies between the data presented on Page 30 versus the inforll12.tion presented
on Page 40. The data presented in lable 9 varies from that indicated in the te:tt, this
jnformation must be claritied as it provides the basis for the traffic analysi!;. The vehicle
occupancy must be computed during the peak departure times presented Oil Page 41. In
addition, the occupancy of'the boats during the peak times must be provided. Based on
these discrepandes, it appears that there may be an understatement of the vl:bicular traffic
generated by the eSF. Additionally the date/day and time or the manual c:>unts must be
provided. Finally there is a discrepartcy in the repott nomenclature in both the figures and
the text, regarding lhe Sea Jet and Sea Jet 1. It is assumed this is the same vessel;
however, it is confusing and should be clarified.
POl!' 10 .f 12
:1'::::'-197 !G:-'$l)
'Zr516 7~i .n.')!)
GREG
l(lJOl~
.
.
elM' Soand Ferry
Dran EIS Rc.Io"
p. 42
Peak Houn of Use. Figures 14 through 19 have no correlation to the CSF activity.
Please provide the correct information. In addition, the computations fbr the vehicular
traffic should be provided.
Auto Vessel/High Speed Vessel. Please provide a table of boat si~e, capac:ity and capacity
during the survey as mentioned above, similar to that which is provided on Page :i!O of
Draft EIS.
p.41
p. 43 Sources of u/stlng Traffic, Cross Sound Ferry SeTYict?s. The informati"n presented in
the last paragraph is unclear and needs to be revised.
p. 49 Seasonal Variation Please prOvide j\,lstification for the Roule 25 seasonal :lC1ivity.
p. 5.3
p. 54 Non.Molarist Activit)'. Please provide sources for the non-motorist activity analysis. On
paee 53 the Route 25 shoulder is listed as 7 feet while on page 54 it is listed as 8 feet.
The analyses ne~ to be recompiled using the appropriate shoulder width.
p.56-
p. 59 Transportation: Anticipated Impact. Anticipated Future Traffic Growth. The
computation of the ferry gro\Vlh neglects to include the increase in ferry activity in 1997.
This appears to be significant since ridership increased in 1997, I I. 6% over 19% levels.
The growth factor needs to be recompiled including the 1997 data.
p. 6/ Esttmation of Traffic Volume following ConslHlctio/1 of the Proposed Action. The
estimated traffic by the proposed action needs to be recompiled based on the comments
rllised above. Based On the infonnation presented it appears the impacts associated with
the proposed project may by masked due to the fact that the analysis does not llMlyze all
of the peak CSF times indicated on Page 41. An analysis needs to be provided which
investigates these periods liS well as the highway peak periods. In addition, justification
for the distribution of passenger growth should be provid~. Additionally,. a table of the
arrh.ingfd8parting CSF hourly traffic elCistins and propos~ with an indication of boat
capacity should be provided.
p.64-
p. 72 QuantificatiolJ of Project Sire Gellerated Impacrs Based upon the ~vel of Se",'ice
Calculations. The analyses presented in this sel:tion requires revision based on the
comments listed above. The analyses as presently compiled, indicates that further analysis
is I'8quired to properly assess the impact oC the CSF traffic Critical intersection( ~) must
be studied and any impacts identified. In addition, mitigation must be provided for all
locations which display a change in Level of Service since iewer gaps will be available at
cross streetS and driveways.
1'''10 11 on:!
.
.
Crt>" Souad "em
Dnn lIS Revl.,.
p. 7J Assessment of Existing and Prapased Site Improvements. The meaning of pedestrian
.. $llDetions" should Qe darified.
The scoping outline required a detailed description of the pedestrian environment,
including. pedestrian flows from terminal to boats, boats to parking for pick-up areas.
parking to beach, ate. This should be .discussed more fully to provide a basis of
understanding for analysis and implementation of proposed mitigation me3.!.ures.
p. U D/1/ermination of Safe Traffic Flow Volume with R~spllct to Cyclists and Pedestl'ians.
Comments relating to pages 53 and 54 must be included in this analysis.
p.75.
p. 79 Transporflation: Summary. The summary needs to be revised incorporating the
informalion listed above.
.
.
.
..
If the Planning Board is in agreement with our analysis of the Draft EIS, it is rcc,)mmended that
the document be revised to address these comment!. We find it advisable to submit a revised
docwnent
rather than submission of an addendum which tends to be more confusing during the public
review and comment process. The con$Ultants on behalf of the apFlicant sho'JJd review the
revised document for consistency. Tn cases where re'lisions in response to comments occur in
several parts of'the text, the changes should b~ consist~ntthrou~out the document.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the Town Planning Board in review of ':his Draft EIS
Please (eel free to call should you hal/e any questiol1s.
v cry truly yours,
Pee. uoru
.
.
Southold Town Planning Board
19
November 24, 1997
But I say what I said a year ago that if you make it a full complete site plan,
you have a state and federal government who will become supportive of
you, If you accept it in any kind of segmented form, as their own indication,
it says they only need Southold Town, Trustees, and DEC permits, then you
are going to have to live by their word, which is the way we've been having
to do up until now. Thank you.
Mr, Orlowski: Any comments from the Board? I'll entertain a motion to
adjourn,
Mr, Edwards: So moved,
Mr, Orlowski: Motion made and seconded, All those in favor?
Ayes: Mr, Orlowski, Mr, Ward, Mr, Latham, Mr, Edwards, Mr, Cremers.
Mr, Orlowski: Opposed? Motion carried,
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
adjourned at 8:10 p,m,
Respectfully submitted
Martha A. Jones
Secretary
/
i r
wsRCJr" Chair~
.
~
.~.~t'~~'\
i:" ~
1':':::>> ;;....c.
N C> .
'''" ~
~~ ~
"..... .....
~ oft" ~'"
"J. . i'
.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
NOV 2 5 1997
November 25, 1997
Sodha/d Town a.k
William Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter and Angel
108 East Main St.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry
SCTM# 1000-15-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 & 3.5
Dear Mr. Esseks:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a
meeting held on Monday, November 24, 1997:
WHEREAS, this Board on July 14, 1995 determined that the applicant, Cross
Sound Ferry Services, Inc. was required to seek revised site plan review for its
ferry terminal operation at Orient; and
WHEREAS, an action was commenced to enforce this Board's resolution to such
effect; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, upon direction of the Court and this Board, prepared
and filed a site plan on April 11 , 1996 which was deemed incomplete in that,
among other things, the applicant had not included the entire site in its site plan;
and
WHEREAS, this Board required that the applicant submit a site plan
encompassing the entire ferry terminal site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant thereupon represented to the Court and this Board
that "an all-encompassing site plan" would be prepared and submitted on July
29, 1996; and did submit such a site plan on July 29, 1996; and
WHEREAS, upon the submission of said comprehensive site plan this Board
commenced the SEQRA review process, determined that this was a Type I
action, issued a Positive Declaration, and ultimately adopted a Scope Outline on
.
.
Page 2
Cross Sound Ferl)f
November 25. 1997
.
the 16th day of December, 1996; and
WHEREAS, applicant has submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
purporting to be in compliance with the Scope Outline; and
WHEREAS, this Board and its environmental consultants have reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement submitted by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. on the 15th day of
October, 1997, be and hereby is deemed incomplete; and
This Board finds, among other things, that the site plan submitted with the DE IS
is a plan which has never been submitted to this Board and which plan, if it had
been submitted to this Board, would not have been accepted; and is not a site
plan which encompasses the entire ferry terminal site; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is hereby directed to complete
the DEIS in accord with the adopted Scope Outline and which revised DEIS
must consider and answer the concerns raised in the report of this Board's
consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, which report is dated the 24th day of
November, 1997.
Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above.
a~~
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
j~
enc.
cc: Francis Yakaboski, Attorney
Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.
Dunn Engineering Associates
John Raynor, P.E, L.S, & P.C.
Laury Dowd, Town Attorney
.
.
nOWAP.O~. FINKE~STEIN
P:E~R~ G, Lt~caERC
:~.ANCI~ .'1. 'fAfo'.A!CSt:I
FRANK". J;SLER
SUSAN ROGtA$ GRaN
(;AI~ G. arT.S
SMITH, FINKELSTEIN I LUNDBERG, ISL.ER AND YAKABO:lKI
!\TTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
456 GRIffING AV~NUE, CORNER OF LrNCO~~ STR~ET
P. O. SOX 389
~rVE~~EA), ~~W YORK 1:901-0203
iS16! 727-4100
REGINALD C. SIH":'H'
1926-1~e3
FI\X (S16) 727-4130
O>'W~1 C. THOMAS
MATTHtw M. FINKELSTEIN
GR!GORY F. YAKABOSY.!
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
Robert Kassner
FROM:
Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq.
DATE:
November 17, 1997
TELECOPY NO:
765-3136
NO. OF PAGES:
(including cover sheet)
( 12)
rr:~r-C:-'
I J ":
:0 [-"---
W LNOV
.,~~--"~--
I \~ ffi ~
-... ' !l ~ 1
171997 ;~
I
....J ,
.J J
.'
;'"..--....,
RE: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
MESSAGE:
"--__ r'
I Pursuant to Benny Orlowski's request, I attach herewith a copy of Nelson, Pope &
Voorhis' review of the DE IS in the above referenced matter.
IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS \VJTH TRANSMlSSION, PLEASE CALL (516) 727-4100
TIns TRANSMISSION IS INT!;:NDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDrvIDUAL OR ENTITY TO \VlIJCH IT IS
AODRESS, AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFOR..Y1ATION BELONGING TO THE SENDER vmICH IS
PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRrvILEGE OR OTHER DOCTRINE. IF YOU ~R.E NOT THE
INTE!';DED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY ~OTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOS1..iRE, COPYING DISTRIBUTION OR
THE TAKING OF ANY ACTIO:-.l IN RELIA:-.lCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS lNFORMA1101, IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, IMtvLEDlA TEL Y >IOTIFY US BY
TELEPHOKE TO ARRANGE FOR ITS RETURl\.
.
NSLSON. POPS & VOORHIS, l.Lc
c"'"",Q&:N'-"IlilNT".. . -L'."'NI",C . CONCI.JLT'N
C'~"'RlfS J, VOOIIIHIS, CH', ..tC~ . "'''l11uA J.1t:1}!ABEF..,c. . '''',''IIC(Io.t O. oo,..,t-'''l.~ r."_
. "lCfOFl aeRT.~E.' JOS"H ~,E'IPA.NI,t.P:'. RO&t", Oi,N(LSON.JIl.PE
. C"RlnoP"U.A w, IlOftIHS.OH, ".;'
November 12,1997
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chainn2l1
Town of Southold PliMing Board
c/o Francis 1. Yakaboski
Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski
456 Griffing Avenue, Comer of Lincoln Street
PO. Box 389'
Riverhead, New York I 1901-0203
Re: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
Review of Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
N&P Project No. 97106
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
Please be advised that we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statemt,nt (EIS) for the
above referenced project received by the Planning Board On behalf of the applica/.1t, Cross Sound
Ferry Servlees, Ino, (CSF), The document eonsists oftbree 0) volumes, noted as follows:
· Draft Environmental Impact Statement
· Appendices for the Draa Environmental lmpact Statement
· Traffic Impaet Study for Proposed C"On Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion
The Draft EIS and Appendices are dated October 1997, and the Traffic Impact Study is dated
September 1997. The first volume of the Draft EIS contains a Proposed Site Pl8ll for the project
prepared by 10hn 1. Rayner with a last revision date ofSeplember 17, 1997.
This review is intended to delermine the scope and adequacy of the document for the purpose of
public review. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) and the predecessor company Charles
Voorhis &. Associates, Inc. was contracted by the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead
agency 10 assist with the State };nvironmcotal Quality Review (SEQR) administration and review
of the Cross Sou,nd Ferry application, including recommendation for issuanoe of a Detennination
of Significance (positive Declaration) and the preparation of a SEQR Scoping Outline to establish
the scope and content requirements ofthe Draft Ers. The subject Draft EIS has been reviewed in
consideration of the SEQRSeoping Outline issued by the Planning Board as le;ld agency and
dated December 16, 1996, and with knowledge of meetings, letters and 8ssodated scoping
process issues and documents, Traffic review was completed by transportation engineers of
~"'a WALT WHrTM.....'" AOAC, MSt..V'L~e. NV , t747.au:JS
CS1SJ 42:7.:5889 F.aX (516) 42?'SS20
",r
r~' . .J " _
Nuv-12-1'397 18: 1\1
NC~SON ~ POPc,LLP
.
.
516 427 5620 P.03/l2
eton Sound Ferry
Dratl XIS Review
Nelson & Pope, LtC, and other aspects of the review were completed by environmental
professionals of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC.
At this time, we believe that the document is not consistent with the SEQR Sc:oping Outline and
further contains factual errors, omissions, and required clarification in orde" to constitute an
acceptable publie review document under SEQR, If the Planning Board is in agreement, we
suggest that this review be directed to the applieant for revision based on the following specific
COllUnents:
DRAIT EIS
p. x Table of Comell/s. The review and organization of the document would benefit trom the
inclusion of a List of Figures, as well as a List of Tables.
p. 11 Project Design and Layout. The project site is identified as the 2,47 a.cre Trust Parcel.
The list of major milestones contained on Page 6 . indicates that the pending site plan
application submitted April II, 1996 is "to create new parking on the Trust Parcel and in
increase in tbe number of existing available parking spaces on the sClaelc bar parcel".
Accordingly, the proposed project should be revised to include the Sna.;k Bar parcel, as
this is part of the proposed project.
p. J 3 Exlsling and Proposed Parking. Some indication should be provided regarding the
adequacy of the proposed project to meet the demand for increased parking. The parking
need should be established based on employees and ridership, It is noted on Page 21, that
a crew of approximately 100 workers is needed during the busiest S~!lSon. and Cross
Sound employs 130-210 persons; however, it is not indicated if these employees park on
Long Island or Connecticut.
Park.ing design should be described more fully including; use of curb Slops, striping.
ac<;ess, aisles and circulation, as per the scoping oudine. Parking opet~tion should be
described as per the scope, including traffic management procedures, attE,ndants, and any
pertinent operational information.
p. J J EIisting and Proposl!d Recharge. The drainage design is difficult to understand based on
the Information provided and should be explained more fully in the document. The text
does not appear to be consistent with the site plan, as it makes reference to a centrally
located french drainage basin, The site plan and drainage calculations in the Appendix
seem to make reference (0 many trenches and drainage units. A cross secl:ion of a typical
proposed drainage system would be useful. Reference should be made te, the process of
Town drainage review for adequacy of Ihe system 10 contain runoff.
p. 15 Existing and Proposed Lighting a1ld La/ldscaping The reference 10 the Visual Resource
Assessment and Landscape Design Narrative is confusing as it reference,s Tim Rumph,
L:mdscape Architect, when the report in the Appendix WaS prepared by Araiys Design
Poc.1 of 11
.
L.A., P.C. The proposed landscaping design should be reviewed to determine
con1licts with the propo.~ed gravel trench area on the west side of the parking area.
.
Lro", Sound j<~~rry
Dun EIS R"'I.~'
if it
The Conceptual Planting Plan does not replace the need for a. landscape plan that would
specity density, size and location of plant materials for landscape enhancement.
The location and orientation o( the lighting standards should be describe d and depicted on
the site plan.
-.
p, 18 Table oj Jurisdiction. A tidal wetlands permit is required from New York State
Depanment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); however, an application is ''Not
Submitted at this Time" according to the Draft Ers. An application sho~ild be made to the
NYSDEC so that ample consideration will be given to the Draa Ers during the review
process.
p.:22 Geology: Existing Condition. Subsurface. Composition and Thickness. Some indication
should be given to whether the loamy silt between 1 and 3.5 (eet poses a constraint to soil
leaching capabilities.
p. 28 Geology: Anticipated 1mpact. Subsurface, It appears as though drainage systems will be
located within loamy silt. some discussion of the adequacy of soils for leaching should be
provided.
The impact of removal of soil for drainage should be discussed including, quantity,
disposition, and expected impacts from this activity.
p. 29 Geology: A.nticipated Impact. Surface. The statement "There will be 110 impact to the
offshore, littoral zone because the project does not extend to beach (sic]", should be
supported with a statement o( the intended setback, method of control (i. e. mitigation
using hay bales along Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary), and referl~nce to required
pel1t1its should any additional activity Occur in this area.
l'
p. 31 Water .ReSOlffces: Existing Condition. Groundwater. the statement n. . . the watet table
below the subject property is situated at a deplh of 7.8 feet" should nole the location of
the test bole as the elevation of water beneath the sile is expected to vary given the size of
the site and hydrologic dynamics.
p. 33 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Allalyses. For c1ari!!y in reading by
the public, please indicate that result va.lues are reported in the same units ;is MeL or AL.
Please also indicate MCL or AL values are reported as per SCDHS laboratory data sheets
contained in the Appendix.
p. 46 Wafer Resources: Existing ConditiOIl. Drainage. All reference to potential natural
collection areas are based on the map. Please indicate i( field inspections were conducted
Poco J .r 11
.
.
ere.. Sound rerry
nrott lIS R..i...
to detennine potential for localized ponding and drainage issues not identifiable on the
map.
p. 47 Water Resources: Existing Condition. Flooding. The site is noted as lying in flood zones
Zone V8, Zone A7 and Zone B - please indicate jurisdictional review and special
requirements of these zones to the proposed project, if applicable.
p. 48 ~ Water Resources: A.nticipated Impacts. Effect of the- on...sile runoff The storm event
capacity of the drainage systems should be specified, and some indication should be
provided regarding the adequacy of these systems to retain runoff consistent with NUR.P
recommendations,
Seasonal variation of groundwater on the site itself is not well defined in the Draft ErS,
which notes seasonal changes of as much as "several feet during a year". The depth of the
stonnwater leaching systems should be noted with respect to growldwater, and the
potential for groundwater to intersect these systems thereby reducing storage capacity
should be discussed.
p- 55 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology: Existing Conditions. Wetlands. The statement. "The
project does aocear to fall within the NYSDEC jurisdiction" (emphasis added], should
clearly indicate that a permit is required as indicated on Page 18 of the Draft EIS.
p. 58 Transportation: Existing Condition & (A.) Anticipated Impacts. The TraJ'fie Impact Study
included as an Appendix was reviewed in detail and comments are provided in a separate
sec:tion below. All changes in study methodology and/or conclusions resulting from
revisions should be accurately reflected in the text of the Draft EIS.
p. 63 Land Use and Zontng: Existing Condition. aWing Non-Conforming USI'S on the Project
Site. The document should indicate if other non-conforming uses exist on the overall
project site.
)'
p. 66 Lmtd Use and Zoning: Existing Conditions. Conformance of the PropoS/!d A.ction to
Existing Land USIl Plans. LWRP. Coastal policy 2S deals with the overall scenic quality
of the coastal area. The concluding sentence regarding this policy indicates, ". . . with
respect to the sites history and its existing condition, the proposed site' plan could be
considered an enhancement and should be determined consistent with Coastal Policy 25"-
The establishment of parking areas, aisles, lighting, drainage and occupanc:y by 8S many 8S
155 cars, is not considered an enhancement to overall scenic quality as compared with
rural open space character, agricultural use and/or vacant land. It is noted that the use of
the !outh part of the site for dredge spoil will not change based on our understanding of
the proposed project. This policy analysis requires more discussion in ord'~r to justify the
conclusion.
p.81 lAnd Use and Zoning: Existing Condi/iolls. Conformance of the Proposed Action to
Extsting Land Use Plans. Orielll Landmark Designation. A statement is provided that
po._ 4 of 11
~
.
.
ern" Sound rerry
Dran lIS Rcvi....
the ". . . proposed action does not include the Snack Bar parcel. . ."; however, Page 6 of
the document indicates that the Snack Bar parcel is part of the pending site plan
application. The discussion should be expanded to include potential impact considerations
regarding the overall project site. Section d) on Page 85 should also b.! consistent as well
as any other similar references in other sections of the document.
p. 82 _Land Use and Zoning: Anticipated Impact. Impact on lAnd Use. Imp/let on Zoning. M
- per the sea ping outline, this section should include a discussion of potential lighting impact
(diffuse and direct) on adjacent land.
p. 86
I
p. 90
p.93
p. 94
From a land use impact perspective, support should be provided in a. n!l1Tative discussion
concerning the use of a residentially zoned parcel for parking purposesl. The discussion
should include a review of each adjacent land use with a statement of th.e potential impact
of the proposed project on the adjacent use. This information was requested in the
scoping document.
From a zoning impact perspective, the impact and precedent setting nal:ure of the action
should be exploted with respect to expansion of a parking use associated with the existing
MIl ferry terminal, into an adjacent R.80 low density residential zoning di strict.
Pagc 83 indicates that. ", . . the evaluation of the impacts of the proposed action as it
relates to the zoning on this site will be conducted by the Town Zoning !loard of Appeals
during the course of the review of the application currently pending before them and
therefore can not be discussed in this DEIS". The ZBA is an involvl!d ageney under
SEQR and therefore relies on documentation containcd in the Draft ElS to make their
findings and decision. Accordingly, the impact of the project upon land use and zoning
issues is required to be discussed in the Draft EIS. The statement noted above should be
removed and the appropriate information provided.
Community Services: Eristing Conditions. Fire Protection within the Orient Community.
The scoping outline requin!s an account of any restrictions which may exist on freight
shipping of hazardous materials; however. this information is not provided,
Community S,rvices: Anticipated Impact. Anticipated Impact on Fire Protection. In
order to maintain a safe condition en the project site, and consistent with the Fire Chiefs
recommendation and the applicants intent, it is recommended that stron,:er language be
provided regarding the location and timing of the installation of a fire well on the subject
site. The applicant may wish to make this part of the current project description.
Visual Resources: Anticipated Impact. Please indicate if there will be a visual impact due
to illumination of the land surface andlor diffuse lighting,
Historic/Pre-Historic Resources: Existing Condition. The document should indicate the
significance of any of the existing historic structures on the overall project site, as per the
scoping outline.
Pac. 5 .111
.... "~ ~,
.
.
C,." Sound Ferry
Droll liS RoYle'"
p. 97 Noise Resources: Existing Conditioll. Aiuicipated Impact" The Noise Impact Study
included as an Appendix was reviewed in detail and comments are provided in a separate
section below. All changes in study methodology and/or conc:lus;ons resulting from
revisions should be accurately reflected in the tC'\"t of the Draft Ers.
It is noted that Page 97 of the Draft EIS indicates ambient noise was determined at the
property line of the nearest receptor; however, the location of an~bient noise data
~ collection points is not specified in the Noise Impact Study.
p. 98 Cumulative Impacts. The definition used in the pre-amble to this sectic n should reflect a
SEQR related definition of cumulative.
Identify the rationale for discussion of cumulative impacts, and provide a conclusnry
statement based on this rationale and analysis.
p. 102 Mittgation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Provide mitigation for removal
of soil for installation of drainage systems.
Any additional mitigation or changes in mitigation that are necessary as a result of revised
impact analysis should be reflected in this section.
p. 107 Miligation Measures. Blljfers and Barriers. The method for installing shields or other
physic31 barriers to restrict transmission of construction noise, should be stated. This
comment is extracted from the Noise Impact Study which is reviewed sepllrately.
p. 11 J Adverse Environmental AffectS that Cannot he A lIoided If the Project is Implemented
Additional adVerse environment31 afFects should be noted IS necessary based on the
revised impact analysis. Areas which may require listing in this section include; soil
removal and construction impacts, impact on transportation systems, impact on
community noise levels and land use impacts due to precedent.
l
p. /16 Allematlvlls. The Draft EIS should provide a more detailed analysis of the integrated site
plan. Seoping documents and Planriing Board input are clear in stating that an integrated
site plan of the overall Cross Sound Ferry site is a preferred alternative. Since the
proposed project has not been modified to reflect integrated site design, an honest
evaluation of the integrated site plan alternative is required. It is rec()mtnended that
efforts be made 10 develop a concept that will coordinate site use, improve safety.
circulatlon, access, and long-term objectives of the Planning Board and project sponsor.
Reasonable efforts should be made to resolve those issues bulleted on Panes 116-J 17, in
order to prepare an integrated plan. Contact with NYSDOT toward achieving integrated
site design should be documented. It should be noted that possible coordinated
improvements do not need to occur all at once but could be phased. Mitigation for
pedestcian safety, coordination with the Snack Bar parcel referenced on Page 6 as well as
in Alternative B (page 118), ne~d for cross access from Route 25 through the Snack Bar
Plgo 6 .r 11
Sib 427 5620 p.0E/12
.
.
Crost Sound FrrT')'
Dran EIS R<'1e"
parcel to the Trust Parcel, and other aspects of overall facility use, all amplil'y the need for
integrated site design. A realistic plan for integrated design should be prepared and
~ubmitted, and used as a basis for analysis. This request is eonsistent with the scoping
documents. meetings and input from the Planning Board.
p. 118 Alt~rnativ<<s. Alt~mativ~ Par!cing U,I Sire. The combinaiion of the Snack Bar and Trust
-. Parcel, is di$cuMed In this alternative; however. based on Page 6, this is actually the
pending site plan applieation under consideration. The'integration of th':se sites should be
provided in graphic fOIl11 and discussed and analyzed il! the proposed project consistent
with the pending site plan application.
APPENDICES FOR THE DRAFT ErS
Noise ImDact Studv
A-H] Existing Condition. The second paragraph indicates ". . . noise reading:~ were perfonned
in the vicinity of the two sensitive receptors in the study area, identified as the two
residences on the' north side of Route 25 opposite the ferry property"- Figure B is
intended to present the locations at which the readings were taken; however. each house
Itself is identitied in the figure. Ambient noise levels should be detellmined based on
readings at the residential property line. as the use area of adjacent residents includes yard
areas.
A-155 ExistIng Condition. The statement. "As can be seen. ambient Leq readings of 53 and 54
dBA prevail during times of low activity at the fetry . . .... is not sUppol1ed by Table A,
which does not include Leq levels below 54. .
~.
The last sentence indicates that insect actiVity contributed significantly to ambient noise
levels. Insect activity may therefore falsely elevate the Leq. as insect activity is not
expected during all seasons or during all times of the day when ferry and parlcing lot
activity could cause a perceptible increase above ambient noise. This issue should be
resolved.
A-IS7 Tahle A. The method of determination ofLeq should be indicated. including. the date of
readings, the number of readings. the frequency of measurements, etc. Were readings
taken at a time when the Snack. Bar parcel parking area was being utilized.
A-159 Par!ctng Lot Noise. The statement. "This noise impact is generated by the existing
operation. which is of considerable greater magnitude than the expected increase due to
the proposed action." is not supported. The parking lot is nearer to the receptors
(particularly Receptor N;Z) than the current operation. The next paragraph in the report,
which concludes that the impact is expected to be Jess than 3 dBA, is not supported.
P.g. 7 or 11
,"'....,
.
.
Cr... Sound F.rTY
Dtlln ~IS R.vi....
If necessary based on analysis, please provide a method of mitigation of sile generated
noise.
A-/59 Trqffic Noise. Please provide a reference for the relationship between traffic noise and an
Increase of3 dBA.
A-/61 Construction Noise. Please discuss how shields or other physical barriers will be used to
- limit construction noise.
'TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
The following is a page by page discussion of the review oflhe Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
by Dunn Engineering Associates (DEA) for the Cross Sound Ferry project. Based on this review
it appears Ihat the analysis performed by DEA cloaks the potential impacts as:lociated with the
CSF traffic. Detailed comments are provided below based on page numbers from the Tnffic
Impact Study:
p. 3 Study Procemm!s. . Provide a di$cussion and hourly tabulation of the existing parlcing
accumulation at the site and an analysis of the proposed conditions.
p. 6 Description of Access for the Site and Internal Road Circulation. A sketch of the
eldsting and proposed parking and staging areas would be elCtremely USllful in reviewing
the document.
Please provide a description of parties having right to access the northerly right-or-way, as
well as boundaries and' deed restrictions associated with this right-or-way, as per the
scopilli outline.
p. 7
l
Route 25, Existing Conditions. Provide source for 1996 data. ClaritY Ai\DT and ADT.
The discussion ofNYSDor volume data and summer volume data is difficult to follow.
The nature of traffic issues, parking issues and concerns should be indicated in this section.
Please discuss heavy truck traffic, Boy Scout outings, etc., as per scoping outline.
p. 9 Cross Sound Ferry Services Trafjlc versus Background rrqffic. Provid.: computations
and source of the data for the calculation of Cross Sound Ferry traffic. Provide the
occupancy factor and its SOurce. During the computation of the existing CSF traffic what
WlL!I the capacity of the boals? Based on review of Figures 2.7, it is noted that the Orient
tenninal traffic is a major contributor to the volume during most of the day; however, the
text indicates the contribution of Orient terminal traffic is "minimal". The traffic study
should include and claritY this information.
p. 13 Vehicle Mix, Route 25. Vehicle rnbc data provides is for weekday only. Provide vehicle
mix on the weekday and for Saturday and Sunday during the peak ferI)' activity.
Pig. 8 of II
.
.
Crou Sound Ferry
Dr.n tIS Revi...
p.14 Accident Summary. As per the August 18, 1997 meeting with !:lEA 8JId N&P in
attendance, provide Police Department Accident Data to supplement SASS data. The
definition of non-reportable accidents should reviewed and determined ,if it is correct. If
so then claritY the Table J description on Page 16.
p. /.5 Accident Rotes. Please indicate the nature of improvements perfo.rmed during the
--WSDOT project to improve the traffic accident rate. provide a discussil)n.
p. /6 1996 Report Accidents. There seems to be an accident severity prob1llm as well as an
issue with drivers falling asleep.
p. /8 7 Day Traffic Volume Counts for Route 25 Immediately West of the Proposed PrajeCI.
. As indie.t.ted on Page 57, the ferry .eMce increased from 1996 to 1997. The 1996 traffic
data collected needs to be adjusted to account for this situation.
p. 28 A vailahility of Public Trampor/alicn. Please indicate the ridership of the 5-92 bus, if
known. What are the Iravel times to intervening points (Tanger, Riverheid, Greenpon)?
Compare cost of the Trolleys of Long IsI8JId with the ferry walk on and drive on fares.
p. 30
p. 40 Trip Pas~"ger and Vehicle Datd. In regards to the vehicle occupancy of the eSF, there
ate discrepancies between tbe data presented on Page 30 versus the information presented
on Page 40. The data presented in Table 9 varies from that indicated in the telCt, this
Information must be clarified as it provides the basis for the traffic analysis. The vehiele
occupancy must be computed eluting the peak departure times presented "n Page 41. In
addition, the occupancy of the boats during the peak times must be provided. Based on
these discrepancies, it appears that there may be an understatement of the vehicular traffic
generated by the CSF. Additionally the date/day and time of the manual counts must be
provided. finally there is a discrepancy in the report nomenclature in both the ligures and
the text, regarding the Sea Jet and Sea Jet Y. It is assumed this is the same vessel;
hOWever. it is confusing and should be clarified.
p. 41 Peak Hours af Use. Figures 14 through 19 have no correlation to the' CSF activity.
Please provide the correct information. In addition, the computations for the vehicular
traffic should be provided.
p. 42 Alita VusellHigh Speed VesseL Please provide a table of boat size, capacity and capacity
during the survey as mentioned above, similar to that which is provided 1m Page 20 of
Draft EIS.
p. 43 SOll1'ces of Existing Traffic, Cross Sound Ferry Services. The information presented in
the last paragraph is unclear and needs to be revised.
p. 49 Seasonal Variation. Please provide justification for the Route 2S seasonal activity.
Plcr 9 or II
Y'
,
.;>10 .:1d (5620 P. 11/12
.
.
Cros. Sound Ferry .
nnn lIS Re.ie".
p.5J
p. 54 Non-Motorist Activity. Please provide sources for the non-motorist act ivity analysis. On
page 53 the Route 25 shoulder is listed as 7 feet while on page 54 it is listed as 8 feet.
The analyses need to be recompiled using the appropriate shoulder width.
p. 56- _
p.59' Transportation: Anticipated Impact. Anticipated ~uhlre Traffic Growth. The
computation of the ferry growth neglects to include the increase in terry activity in 1997.
This appears to be significant since ridership increased in 1997, 1 L 6% ')Ver 1996 levels.
The growth factor needs to be recompiled including the 1997 data.
p.61
Estimation of Trqffic Volume following Construction 0/ the Propos,'d ActiOIl. The
estimated traffic by the proposed action needs to be recompiled based' (.n the comments
raised above. Based on the information presented it appears the impacts: associated with
the proposed project may by masked due to the fact that the analysis doe,s not analyze all
of the peak CS:F' times indicated on Page "L An analysis needs to be provided which
investigates these periods as well as the highway peak: periods. In addition, justification
for the distribution of passenger growth should be provided. Additionally, a table of the
arriving/departing CSF hourly traffic existing and proposed with an indication of boat
capacity should be provided.
p.64-
p.72
Quantification of Project Site Generated Impacts Based upon the L,lvel of Service
Calculation.s. The analyses presented in this section requires revision based on the
comments listed above. The analyses as presently compiled, indicates that further analysis
is required to properly assess the impact of the CSF traffic. Critical jntClsection(s) must
be studied and any impacts identified. In addition, mitigation must be provided for all
locations which display a change in Level of Service since fewer gaps will be available at
cross streetS and driveways.
i
p. 73 Assessment of Existing tl;nd Proposed Site Improvements. The meanin~l of pedestrian
"sanctions" should be clarified.
The scoping outline required a detailed description of the pedestrian environment,
including, pedtStrian flows from terminal to boats, boats to parking for pick-up areas,
parking to beach. etc. This should be discussed more fully to provide a basis of
understanding for analysis and implementation of proposed mitigation meastlres.
p. 74 Determination of Safe Traffic Flow Volume with Respect to Cyclists and Pedestrians.
Comments relating to pages 53 and 54 must be included in this analysis.
p.75-
p. 79 Transportation: Summary. The summary needs to be revised incorporating the
information listed above.
P.~e to .Ot
.
I
.
.
Cross Soll1ld Yert)'
D...n lIS R<Vfe..
.
.
.
.
If tbe Planning Board is in agreement with our analysis of the Draft ErS, it is r"colJUl)ended that
the document be revised to address these comments. We find it advisable to submit a revbed
document rather than submission of an addendum which tends to be more eonlusing during the
public review and comment process. The colUultants on behalf pf the applicant should review the
revised document for eonsistency. In case$ where revisions in response to comments occur in
sevmll partS of the text, the changes should be consistent throughout the document.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the Town Planning Board in review of this Draft EIS.
Please feel free to call should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
P'C' 11 0' 11
TOTAL P.12
-,",
~
",'1:,"
-...
.
d~
;j'~'J.~'"
IJ" ~,
~=> ~"
Cl .
"" ""
~ ;:!
~. ~
. ~O./ .. ~~<::s
.
s..."'.~
I"
. (
)\0\.'
.~
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 13, 1997
Eric J. Bressler, Sq.
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C.
P.O. Box 1424
Mattituck, New York 11952
Dear Mr. Bressler:
Transmitted herewith is a certified resolution of the Southold Town
Board, adopted at their November 12, 1997 regular meeting, granting your
Appeal from denial of access to records with regard to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement filed by Cross Sound Ferry with the
Southold Town Planning Board.
Very truly yours,
~~
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosure
cc:
Committee on PubJit Access to Records
Planning Board v'
cj;&~
- .
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
.
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby grants
the Appeal from denial of access to records, pursuant to Public Officers
Law 989, filed by Eric J. Bressler to access the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, "DEIS", filed by Cross Sound Ferry with the Planning Board
of the Town of Southold.
/?,~d/~
~T:~~
Southold Town Clerk
November 13, 1997
.
~ 001/002
i'B
~5\q.,g
::",l,~'
~ .
\o<j,.
L.i>
T\
11/13/97
12:09
'6'516 727 4130
.
LORNA
SXITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUl'WBERG, IsLBR AND YAEABOSKI
A.TTORNEYS AND COUWS:S:LO:2S .IJ LAW
400 OB.I:FF1.N(t AVIOJlIf"InI:, COBN'ER ~ LDI'COLN STR:atT
HOWARD K.p~~LaTBXN
pm".K G. L11JlI'DBEBG
I'lU.'fClSi J. D.KAB05JU
1"JL.:NE ..... IS;LS8
S"O'!UN RQaEll& GBUlII'
GAIl! G. BBTTS
1"~ O. BOX 389
lUV:S:BBEAD, N. y. 111101-0203
(516) 7a7-4100
:aBCJ:Df&l.P C. SlUTJI
3o....Ul88
~L!WC (&16) 727'-4130
r;M.W)l C. THOMAS
)(.6.TTlI:8'W 1ll. :r.nrJ[ELI5TS'IX
oaKOORY E'- ~OlliKI
November 13.1997
Via Facaimlle
765-1823
Robert Kassner
Site Plan Reviewer
Town Planning Board
Town of Southold
P. O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Dear Bob:
The following is a suggested statement to give those members of the public who
wish to obtain the draft DEIS at this point regarding Cross Sound.
Very truly yours,
FRANCIS J. YAKABOSKI
FJY/rd
Enclosure
NOV I 3 ~Y7
11/13/97 14:57 ft516 727 4130
.
;'ORNA
~ 002/002
.
NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC PURSUANT TO THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW MAY NOT BE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT THE
PLANNING BOARD HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS REVIEW, AND HAS NOT ISSUED A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION, AND ACCORDINGLY, WILL NOT ACCEPT PUBLIC
COMMENT AT THIS POINT. THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE FACT
OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THIS DOCUMENT AT THIS JUNCTURE DOES NOT
COMMENCE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD NOR DOES IT INDICATE IN ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER THAT THE DOCUMENT BEING MADE AVAILABLE IS A
DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN DEEMED COMPLETE BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
Dated: November 13.1997
Southold Town Planning Board
. .
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSRl
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
s~v
~~
yI1KAMSK/
'S71f1=1#'
voWD
October 18,1997
Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Orlowski,
As an interested party, Southold Citizens for Safe Roads respect-
fUlly requests a copy of Cross Sound's OEIS submission. If neces-
sary, we would of course be happy to sign a Freedom of Informa-
tion request.
Sincerely,
Fredrica Wachsberger
Vice President
{~
DC: 2
I
\
..-1 i
:. I
.:.':.t;.__,,,.,,,~
I
k
SOUTH OLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
.
,
~
b(
Subtuission Without a Co-rer Letter
Sender: f1 r ~s~S
Subject: C rO 55 SCJU;wI.... Fu~ DEl S
SCTM#: 1000- /5-4- 10 I, III) 15' I +- 3~
Date: 16/ I ~)11
Zse.ts vl?i5
Comments:
C',," 'I" (to [0"1"';-111
. ' ",; ", "
. j ~~ t'/ IS !i \; LS 0 i
,I OJ r------.----, ~ I!
I~t~ 15 .:JUJI
L___..___.. ,c~L_J
..
.
')
.
.
Su-V
16
'5{
INTER;5CIENCE
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
RICHARD ERIK WARREN, AICP
President
July 15, 1997
Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Southold Town Planning Department
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York
----I
illfli!-W -l~1
I JUL I 6 1991, LJ
I 1
SOUTHOlO TOWN
PlANNING BOARD
VIA TELE-COPIER
Re: Cross Sound Ferry DE/S.
Dear Valerie:
I am developing text for the land use and zoning section of the Cross Sound Ferry DEIS. The
Town's scoping outline requires that I discuss the proposed project in terms of the following land
use plans/studies: (A) The LWRP and the State Coastal Management Program, (B) The Peconic
Bay Estuary Program, (C) Critical Environmental Designation, and, (D) Orient Landmark
Designation. In an effort to address these plans/studies effectively, I need your assistance. The
remainder of this letter is broken down by topic so that my questions and requests are clearly
presented.
The LWRP and the State Coastal Zone Management Program
My history with the Town's LWRP and the Coastal Zone Management Program have enabled me
to develop comprehensive text for inclusion in the DEIS. However, I need a copy of the Town's
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) Map for the area occupied by the project site. A standard
black and white Xerox copy will be sufficient for me to address the NY State Coastal Polices
concerning erosion hazard areas. I will also pass a copy of the CEHA Map onto our coastal
geologist consultant, Mike Bruno, Ph.D., for his review and use.
The Peconic Bay Estuary Program.
To effectively discuss the proposed projects relationship to the Peconic Bay Estuary Program and
the Town, I need to know if the subject program has been formally adopted either partially or
wholly by the Town, County or State. If adopted, who governs or enforces the subject program
within the Town of Southold. Who authored the Program and who do I contact to obtain a copy
of the report? Has the report/study been determined complete or is it still being finalized? May I
meet with you to obtain some perspective on this program?
POST OFFICE BOX 1201 .36 NUGENT STREET. SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11969-1201 .516-283-5958. FAX: 516-283-5974
Orient Landmark Designation.
Our office maintains a current copy of the National and State Register of Historic Places. We do
not possess any information regarding "Orient Landmark Designation" as referred to in the
Towns Scoping Outline. By its distinct separate location in the Scoping Outline (outside of the
outlines "HistoricIPrehistoric Resources Section" which contains references to the StatelNational
Register and the Society for Preservation of Long Island Antiquities) is the Town indicating that
there is a local listing of historic landmarks? Our project archeologist, David Bernstein, Ph.D.
(who will be completing the HistoricIPre-historic Resources Section of the document), will be
made informed of any local listing or information which you provide on this issue.
* * *
I will be at Town Hall in the morning of July] 7 (this Thursday) to purchase a zoning map. Could
we meet at that time to discuss the issues raised in this letter? I am in the office all day today and
tomorrow. Feel free to contact me by either fax or phone. Thank you for your assistance.
Respectfully Submitted,
~
Scott B. Dobriner
Sr. Environmental Planner and
Landscape Architect
SBD
COPY: William Esseks, Esq.
1/.z;:- .. ~
'-..(/y1LCf~f-/. :Ypef~~ OJ<-. ~ 17 ~~.~'
~(.L'~..J--,~~ ?/U<'~~ ~~ ~ C&#d- ~,
-I.~ ~/f'7P~A~j/(h~, ~
;,1 /'a~' ~ A7~ ~-'7V~-(~ ~.~
~~~~/D~r~" , "
/, ~ . AA' . ?lV' ~'-. ..sl""u/f~
.?'f/Kd I/V'- , , / / '
/h~/'-<...~~~ ~.:r~L-/ .,.- u~.
/~
INTER:SCIENCE
-..--
.r
· COUNTY OF SUFFOLK.
(i)
.::u Elf"
P6 I!.
'tAKA e, OS~lfr
RK.
v::'
Pi,"'" -f'.//
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
STEPHEN M. JONES. A.I.C.P.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
August 5, 1997
Scott Dobriner, Sr. Environmental
Planner and Landscape Architect
Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1201
36 Nugent Street
Southampton, NY 11969-1201
\..r~~. rn al.ff\~" "lli.F.
I, " 1 ;i I.
jU! L Nl7 _~.~._r~ I
i . SOLlTiK<.:'
T't t\~I~,:, ;-. -
RE: Suffolk County Designation of Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) at Orient
Point
Dear Mr. Dobriner:
Mr. Jones, Director of the Suffolk County Planning Department, has requested that 1
reply to your July 23, 1997 letter concerning County designated CEAs in the Orient Point
vicinity. Article 37 of the Suffolk County Charter, Section C37-7, deals with the designation of
Critical Environmental Areas by the County (a copy of the appropriate section of the Charter is
attached). Areas A.(1) and (9) refer to CEAs at Orient Point. Specifically, the County owned
property at the end of Orient Point which is north and east of the property owned by the Orient
Point Ferry was designated a CEA in 1986. In addition, in 1988 the Suffolk County Legislature
designated all land immediately within 500 ft. of the shoreline of the bays and/or tributaries east
of the Peconic River a CEA. These are shown on the attached Tax Map. Apparently the ferry
owned land within 500 ft. of the shoreline falls within this CEA. The lands within 500 ft. of the
shoreline were designated because of the potential impacts resulting from runoff, sewage effluent
and erosion on the adjacent environmentally sensitive bay areas. Such impacts should be
discussed in any environmental review of proposed development in these areas. As stated at the
public hearing in Southold, the County is also concerned with any erosion potential that might
negatively impact the County owned open space east of the proposed ferry project.
With respect to your question concerning Suffolk County plans to completely revegetate
the County parkland located at Orient Point and recreate native maritime grasslands, 1 would
suggest that you directly contact Commissioner Michael Frank of the Suffolk County
Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation with respect to those plans.
C;\11TLK\WORKING\ORIENT.1NPO
220 RABRO DRIVE
.
P.O. BOX 6100
.
HAUPPAUGE. LONG ISLAND. NY 1 1 78B~99
. c!Sun 8S3-!5192
FAX C51e) 853-4044
.
.
.
.
Scott Do briner
-2-
August 5, 1997
If you have any further questions with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
9::::B~P
Chief Environmental Analyst
JFB/tk
Attach.
cc: Stephen M. Jones, Planning Director
Valerie Scopaz, Director of Planning, Town of Southold ~
C:\11TLK\WQRKING\ORIENT,WPD
.
2835974 P.01
,
Green
TO
oe-
- ---.'
ICH.O. Z - 'A2I HL.~ ~. ... --,
If" ~- c::,r
eM ASI"-in [i
i ~
~
-..-
.
. .
EXI~IN"
f€ftlZ.Y.,.C;..IU1ItJ"L.
./~"~
\ 6XlSTl"'''
~Y PAA.~~
/9rS" SIL~IJ/J..
.CJ:,4 ~.s/1nA.J.~;"
..
~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK --SQU1'ltOI..!:!
Real Pro DO"" Tax S.rvic~ Agency ....--
c.-.,. c...,., ~... raoo
.'....h...... L. r_ N.. Yo,' ..._~
--
...
- --
-
.........n
I
,.O".T'" MAP
015
--
-
,
TOTA.. P. 01
.
.
fi C37-5
CHARTER
fi C37-7
County Planning Commission may override the action of
the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission only upon
an affirmative vote of three-fourths ('I.> of its entire
membership. Absent such override. the determination of
the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission shall
constitute the determination of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission under Article XIV of the Adminis-
trative Code. Nothing herein contained. however. shall
require any extraordinary vote of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission to recommend additional changes
in such application not inconsistent with the actions of the
Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission.
E. The report shall specify the reasons for the above determina-
tion.
fi C37-6. Annual reports.
The Suffolk County Pine Barrens Review Commission shall prepare
a report annually with respect to its operations and finances, which
report shall be made a part of the County Executive's annual
environmental message to the Suffolk County Legislature.
I C37-7. Designation of critical environmental areas. [Added 6-
23-1987 by I..I.. No. 24-1987J
A. The following lands within the County of Suffolk, as more
particularly described below. are hereby designated as critical
environmental areas pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.4U):
(I) Those lands contemplated for acquisition by the County of
Suffolk pursuant to its open space acquisition program
created via Resolution No. 762-1986.
(2) Central Suffolk Pine Barrens in Brookhaven as per Map
1 and Boundary Description: Exhibit I.'
(3) South Sctauket Woods as per Map 2 and Boundary
Description: Exhibit 2.'
: Editor', Not~: Ell:hibltA I - 7 an altarhHl to L.L. No. 24-1987 and are on n1. In the
olne:. 0' th. County Le"alature.
Cl54.l
'.28.90
.
.
~ C:J7-7
SUFFOLK COUNTY CODE
~ C37-7
(4) Oak Brush Plains as per Map 3 and Boundary Descrip-
tion: Exhibit 3.'
(5) Central Suffolk Pine Barrens in Riverhead as per Map 4
and Boundary Description: Exhibit 4.'
(6) Scallop Pond area in Southampton a.~ per Map 5 and
Boundary Description: Exhibit 5.'
(7) Accabonac Harbor area in East Hampton as per Map 6
and Boundary Description: Exhibit 6.'
(8) Special Groundwater Protection Area. Western Exten.
sion: Exhibit 7.'
(9) The bays east of the mouth of the Pecanic River to and
including Block Island Sound, the land beneath the bays
and all land immediately within five hundred (500) feet of
the shoreline of the bays, and/or its tributaries. [Added
9-14-88 by 1..1.. No. 29-1988]
(10) A II of Fishcrs Island, inclusive of such portions of Fishers
Island not previously designated as a critical environ mcn-
(Cont'd on page Cl55)
. EJltQr'" No~: ET.hlblta }.7 art" attached to 1-1.. No. 24.1987 Md Core on file in the ornen
of the County I...lrilll.turf>.
Cl54.2
8.2&.90
.
.
* C37-7
CHARTER
* C37-7
tal area pursuant to the provisions of this section, as
set forth more particularly on the map of Fishers
Island, attached hereto as Exhibit A.a [Added
10-10-1989 by L.L. No. 43-1989)
NOTEI Lacal LIIw No. 14.1"7, wbiah .dded f C1I7.7. .h,o contained. deflDltiQa. or tbl
word "'oUon," aad a li.t 01 e....'. lotio... .. follo"'l
IeottoD a. Oe8nltlo....
A. ACnON8,
(1) Pro,teou or pIa)'WioaI aottvtu........ .. ...RI"IIat.ioa. _ o&ber MtiYiUn,
.1doIa oIaaap the \1M 01' .......... of _, aaIVal .......... 01'
~wblcbl
fa) Are dlnetly undan-.kn. by _ 'PDCfI
Cb) Involve fundinr by an .,eney; or
eel Rl"qui", one II) or mufti parmitA from an apncyor Ilenelee.
(II Plannin. Ictivitle. or an .,enq lila' eo....nh the -cene)' to . de&niw
COW'IMI or tutu.re dHi.tonl.
(8) .\paC)' nil... replation., prooect__ aad poltcy...Jda,.
{oil Com=lD.Uoal of th. abo"..
B. C.plial Pl'Ojecw ~y ClOIIaWt of. Nt of aettvtti.. or' .gp. (..... ptUllla"
d...... ooatraatiat'. 00Datructi0D aDd. opentloa), For the PurpolIM of thll II.....
the eatire Nt of aotiYltiH 01' 1&epII CIUI be ooaudered _ ",cUoa." If It I.
dotermlned that an environmental bnpllct atate_ent i. neeeaary, only OftI'! (II
draft and on... III 8nal environmengl impact .gLement. ne'ed be prepared on
t.h. -acUon" It the ag&Pment. addre.. e.ch a&op .t . level of detail .ut8t:deot
fo.. .n .dtlqu.ttl .n.lyet. of envlrnnment..IIlft'lPGt". In thll ca.. of . praJllct or
acUvlty lnvolvta. f\andln. 01' . pel'lllllt from .n apacy, the aaUre proJeet .hall
b. GOII.ld....d u -.cun," reranlt... 01 wbeth... .ucb tuadla. 0" pe...U
..tate. to the proJect.. . "lIole or to . portloo or ClOIOpoa.nt of It..
IeatioD... Exnaptlou.
A. Thill law man auK appl)" to lha folio....... _linIN
(1) Rep1aoelllea& of. faoillty, 1a.1dIld, DB the _e ute, 1ID1eea naeb f.cUlty
.... aa)" of the thrnbotdllla 8 NYCRR 811.12-
(I) Th. .......till.. of ludiridual ..lbaok aad to& tloe varlaa--.
eal AtricuUural f.... ..a....8III& pnodc... lacludla, DOoetnacttoa,
m.ln...n.nc. and ",p.l.. of f.no buildlnp .nd .tructu.... aod I.od UM
cbanlr" coael.wot with ..n....lI)" aocepted prinolpl.. of fannin,.
(... Rep.via. 01 nl.Ua, bllbw.,.. aot lavolvlol the .ddUloo 01 Dew tnvel
I......
el) Street opeal... for tile purpoee 01 repair or _aiateaaaM of nt.tiD.
aWlty faoiIttl...
e.) la.taUeUoo. of tnlIIo coatrol dnicn n hleiiD. .treeta, road. ud
h......,...
(7) Public or prl.-ate foreet lDaaapllllent practl~ other thaa the n1IIIov.1
of h'eft 0" the .pplioaUon of herblcidH or ptlIticld...
(8) COnetruc:tton or placemeat or minor .truotar.. .COH'Ory or
.ppurteoant ~ flXl"tln, reclllUca, Incladln, .....'11". carport". p.tlo..
hom. .wimmln. pool.. fence.. b.rn. 01' other bulldinp aot ch.orinc
laacl UN or dea.lty.
(t) Malateaaaoe of eKietia,laaUcaplo, or a.tural powlh.
I Bdltor'. Notet EKhlblt A Ie ettacbed to LL. No. ","1888 aacloa 8Ieta Lbe otIl_ ofth.
Couat)' lArt.l.tu....
C155
8-11-11
.
.
~1~1
rJlt ))
,yV
r
INTER::SCIENCE
RESEARCH ASSOCIA TES, 'Nc.;d~;YEP BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS .......,
RICHARD ERIK WARREN, Alep
President
97 JUl2a AIO: ,1
July 23, 1997
Mr. Stephen Jones, Planning Director
Suffolk County Planning Department
220 Rabro Drive
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Re: Requestfor Information on Critical Ef/I'ironmental Areas,
Dear Mr. Jones:
As per our phone conversation on July 23, 1997, I was referred to you by Mr. Charles Lockrow
from the NYSDEC in Albany, New York. Mr. Lockrow provided me with a map (enclosed)
showing the general delineation of Orient Points Critical Environmental Area (CEA), but he did
not know the specific history or reasons supporting this areas designation. In fact, he suggested
that it is possible that the sole reason this area was determined a CEA was because it is/was an
area contemplated for acquisition by the County.
Based upon our phone conversation, it is my understanding that your staff is knowledgeable with
respect to the history behind Orient Points CEA designation. Accordingly, I hope that your staff
can provide me with information which I may use for discussion in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) that our oflice is currently preparing for the Orient Point Ferry (Cross
Sound Ferry Services, Inc) located in the Town of South old.
The proposed project involves the construction of a 150 car gravel parking area located adjacent
to the existing parking lots which are owned and operated by the Cross Sound Ferry. Upon
reviewing the site plan application for the proposed parking area, the Town issued a Positive
Declaration which required the preparation of a DEIS. The Town then prepared a ten page
Scoping Outline which defines all the issues the DEIS must address. The proposed projects
relationship to existing Critical Environmental Areas is one of the issues we must address.
The enclosed map appears to indicate that our project site lies either adjacent to, or within, the
delineated area. Is the delineated area a designated CEA? I know the county purchased a 50 acre
site at Orient Point, just north of the main road about 10-15 years ago. Is this County acquisition
now the CEA? And ifso, is everything else delineated on the enclosed map now considered
POST OFFICE BOX 120 I . 36 NUGENT STREET. SOUTHAMPTON. NEW YORK 11969-120 I . 516-283-5958 . FAXo 516-283-5974
.
outside of the CEA? It appears on the enclosed map that the site of the existing ferry terminal is
within the delineated area. The ferry has operated on this site since the early part of this century.
What does this site still possess that supported its inclusion as a CEA?
In addition to the questions noted above, it would be greatly appreciated if you could pass on a
clear map and a meets and bounds description of the Orient Point CEA (if one exists) so that I
could accurately describe the location of the terminal/project site with respect to the CEA
boundaries.
Furthermore, I read in the NY Times this past weekend that there are plans to completely re-
vegetate the 50 acres of County parkland located at Orient Point. The article states that the
proposal is to replant the park with native maritime grassland in an effort to restore the site "to
what experts think was its original state". I believe that it would be in the best interest of the ferry
and the County if the ferry proposed using the same species in their application. Please send me
any drawings or information about the park restoration so that the ferry can tailor their proposal
accordingly.
Thank you for your time and effort. I sincerely appreciate your assistance. Please call me if you
have any questions or concerns about this letter. Thanks again.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~ri~
Sr. Environmental Planner and
Landscape Architect
SBD:
ENe.
COPY William Esseks, Esq.
INTE~CIENCE
.
. ,iI. ~:'d Pc
\. .
,. .V
.,. y".
.~ \./,
. ',0 '9" ./
"t IP ~
"', (U.'~
, .
~~
).VG
nE.\ CH
SA Y
.1
...
~.
..~.
V
.~
,.
...
Co'
.
,
.'
...., ~.
-4"
..,
<: "
G"-o ~:
~~.;:
!.
o<l
.:.s;
,-
a,t' ~;
,"'" . ~:
.Ie . _~",rr..: .
O'...~ -I...pcft..,.. ,
. I
0" .
i
, .
O,i,nt
Point
~
I,
.
.'-
..'
~- : ,-,,,,....r'~
: -6-'
.~,..
\
\
\
.
..
.
.
..
.,
(
'II
~
.'
._- .......
.~....
.......
..'-
..
'1
.
.1EIEI.,
S8Iect Plu,"I,
eI Sllll Parkllld
.
I
.
ORIENT POINT
,
I
TOTA... P.01
11'
....
-
..
...
..
~Deerfleld
... to"' .
~r ".
Green
TO
.
2835974
P.01
,
p. "" A---.. ~
SOtl). 2 ,. ~AZI .Ji": ::~;;, 7r~
/'1 ~~ S',.{.\'C//t. ~+t..
C'r-/! /l ... / .-
C./V A/e 5/~-.N'TI 'r>J
."..",., .. --"
(!)
i
;y
.
, ,
EXIS'tINO:;
A>Itll-Y "'ll;lI.I1'''''''L.
,,"
io~
rl'
EXISTI"'''
F4ll.~Y PM-KIM<;
+
.-
@ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ......~
Real PrODertv Tox Servic~ Agency -'"
c......'" c;.",.,. ~-. ItXJO
.'....h.... L. r.. 1'1.. Yor. ..._~
..... -
...
.. - ..
-
c... _fin
I
'lIO"aT" MAP
015
...-
-
,
TOTR.. P .01
.
.
-p~
-pOW"!:>
'1~lq
~)(-vS
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
August 6, 1997
.u.....'_,..~".~
l'\ [5 (;1 "
I D):~~,~
,In
Lie AUl 8
I .,
'---.S()u:,:.j(-,'!~5i;2):'~:N-~
PLANNiNG BOARD
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr,
Planning Board Office
Town of South old
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Town of South old v Cross Sound Fen:y Inc
Dear Mr, Orlowski:
In your May 13, 1997 letter to SCSR regarding the status of Town of South old v. Cross
Sound Ferry Inc. you stated that the Planning Board position was to allow CSF sufficient
time to address the Scoping Outline in depth and specifically to undertake a " detailed
transportation analysis addressing peak activity periods ( i.e. the summer months) ".
Assuming that the ferry schedule reflects the seasonality of ferry traffic, their peak
period ends on Labor Day which is just three weeks away. We have seen no evidence
(traffic counters, etc. ) indicating such a study is underway or , while the other studies
called for in the Scoping Outline are less visually obvious than a traffic study, that am::
studies are underway on the site,
Unless you have firm assurances from CSF that the traffic study and other studies that
are seasonally dependent will take place within the next three weeks we would urge that
you take this failing on the part of CSF to Judge Dunn immediately while there is still
time for peak season data collection. The obvious alternative scenarios are that the Town
will have to settle for whatever data CSF chooses to submit in the DBIS or go before the
judge at that time.
Incidentally, in respect to Judge Dunn there is a misstatement in your May 13 letter that
may influence the thinking and decisions of the Planning Board members concerning
future approaches to his court. In the March 11, 1997 discussions before Judge Dunn
with SCSR, Town, and CSF counsels you have apparently been mis-advised since in
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
.
.
those discussions there was no request made to the judge for an injunction and no
decision by him to decline one at the time.
I would appreciate a response to this letter indicating how the planning Board intends to
proceed.
Yours trul~, . ~
Charle~ .~n for
Thor ~on
President, SCSR
cc: Ms. Jean Cochran, Southold Town Supervisor
r
.
[
[
r
(
r
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR PROPOSED
CROSS SOUND FERRY
PAAKrN'G LOT EXPANSION
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
p,.."., ed for:
CROSS SOUND FERRY. INC.
.
PI... by:
,
,
DUNN ENGINEI:mNG ASSOCIATES
r>
Planning Board Office
Town of Southold
53095 Main Rd.
Southold, NY 11971
Slp'..lJlIER 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROPERTY OF \
PLANNiNG OFFICE
l'TOWN OF SOUTHOLO
Table of Contents
"T
UlJ
5
;:.....
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Purpose of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Historical Perspective .....................................
C. Study Procedures ........................................
II. TRANSPORTATION: EXISTING CONDITIONS
A Existing Transportation Services . .
1. Description of Access to the Site and Internal Road Circulation
2. Route 25, Existing Conditions . . . . .
. Description ...........
. New York State DOT Volume Data .
. Summer Volume Data. . . . . . .
. Cross Sound Ferry Services Traffic versus Background Traffic
. Vehicle Mix, Route 25 ..................
3. latest State Accident Surveillance System (SASS) Data
from the Intersection of NYS Route 25 and Main Street
(Greenport) to the Eastern End of Route 25 .....
4. 7 Day Traffic Volume Counts for Route 25 Immediately
West of the Proposed Project . . .
5. Availability of Public Transportation
6. Cross Sound Ferry Service . . . .
. Transportation Link . . . . . .
. Cross Sound Ferry Services Schedules
. Trip Passenger and Vehicle Data
. Peak Hours of Use . . . . . . . . .
. Auto Vessel/High Speed Vessel . . .
. Sources of Existing Traffic, Cross Sound Ferry Services
7. Existing level of Service and Carrying Capacity on
Route 25 East of the Intersection of NYS Route 25 and
Main Street (Greenport) to the Eastern End of Route 25
. levels of Service Descriptions
. Existing Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Seasonal Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Methods of Handling Traffic Flow During Unloading Process
B. Description of Pedestrian/Cycling Activity Safety from the
Intersection of NYS Route 25 and Main Street (Green port) to
the Eastern End of Route 25
Non-Motorist Activity
III. TRANSPORTATION: ANTICIPATED IMPACT
A. Anticipated Future Traffic Growth
B. NYSDOT Traffic Growth Factors .
C. Estimation of the Traffic Volume Following Construction of the
Proposed Action .....................
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
1
J
',--.,..-
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
9
13
14
18
28
30
30
30
30
41
42
43
45
45
46
49
51
52
53
55
56
60
61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents (Cant'd.l
D.
Quantification of Project Site Generated Impacts Based Upon the
Level of Service Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assessment of the Potential of Uninterrupted Traffic Flow along
Route 25 Resulting from Vehicles Unloading at the Orient Terminal
Assessment of the Existing and Proposed Site Improvements to
Handle Existing and Projected Vehicular Volume over next
5-1 0 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of Safe Traffic Flow Volume with Respect to
Cyclists and Pedestrians
64
E.
72
F.
73
G.
74
IV.
TRANSPORTATION: SUMMARY
75
APPENDIX (Separately Bound)
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
New York State Traffic Volume Counts
1996 Dunn Engineering Traffic Volume Counts
Route 25 East of Main Street, Greenport: Friday, August 16, 1996 to Friday,
August 23, 1996
Route 25 West of Tabor Road, Orient: Friday, August 16, 1996 to Friday,
August 23, 1996
Route 25 East of Narrow River Road, Orient: Friday, August 16, 1996 to
Friday, August 23, 1996
Route 25 West of Cross Sound Ferry Terminal, Orient: Friday, August 16,
1996 to Friday, August 23, 1996
Route 25 East of C.R. 48, Greenport: Friday, August 8, 1997 to Thursday,
August 21,1997 \
Route 25 West of Ferry Entrance, Orient: Friday, August 1, 1997 to
Thursday, August 14,1997
ACCIDENT DATA
1991 to June 1995: State Accident Surveillance System Accident Summaries
1996 Reportable Accident Descriptions
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Traffic Volumes Used in Capacity Analysis
Route 25, Main Street to East Marion Orient Park, Existing Capacity Analysis
Route 25, Main Street to East Marion Orient Park, 2002 Capacity Analysis (No-
Build)
Route 25, Main Street to East Marion Orient Park, 2002 Capacity Analysis (Build)
Route 25, Main Street to East Marion Orient Park, 2007 Capacity Analysis (No
Build)
Route 25, Main Street to East Marion Orient Park, 2007 Capacity Analysis (Build)
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents {Cant'd.1
Route 25, East Marion/Orient Park to Narrow River Road, Existing Capacity
Analysis
Route 25, East Marion/Orient Park to Narrow River Road, 2002 Capacity Analysis
(No-Build)
Route 25, East Marion/Orient Park to Narrow River Road, 2002 Capacity Analysis
(Build)
Route 25, East Marion/Orient Park to Narrow River Road, 2007 Capacity Analysis
(No-Build)
Route 25, East Marion/Orient Park to Narrow River Road, 2007 Capacity Analysis
(Build)
Route 25, Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus, Existing Capacity Analysis
Route 25, Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus, 2002 Capacity Analysis (No-
Build)
Route 25, Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus, 2002 Capacity Analysis (No-
Build)
Route 25, Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus, 2002 Capacity Analysis
(Build)
Route 25, Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus, 2007 Capacity Analysis (No-
Build)
Route 25, Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus, 2007 Capacity Analysis
(Build)
ROUTE 25, NON-MOTORIZED COUNT SUMMARY
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Vehicle Mix. . . . 13
Accident Summary 14
Accident Rates . . 1 5
1 996 Report Accidents 16
Long Island Rail Road Schedule . 29
Approximate Departure Time from Orient Point - Cross Sound Ferry 31
Approximate Arrival Time to Orient Point - Cross Sound Ferry 32
Schedule of High Speed Passenger Service: Sea-Jet,
May 1 through November 30, 1997 ........... 33
Vehicular Occupancy High Speed Ferry . . . . . . . . . . 40
Ridership Information: Orient Point Auto/Passenger Service to New London 44
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25. . . . . . 47
Traffic Volume Comparisons, 11 :00 A.M.-12:00 Noon,
Eastbound and Westbound. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25 - 2002 Conditions 66
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25 - 2007 Conditions 68
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Figures
Figure 1 Location Map . 8
Figure 2 1996 Weekday Background/Ferry Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 10
Figure 3 1996 Weekday Background/Ferry Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 10
Figure 4 1996 Saturday Back9round/Ferry Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 11
Figure 5 1996 Saturday Background/Ferry Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 11
Figure 6 1996 Sunday Background/Ferry Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 12
Figure 7 1996 Sunday Background/Ferry Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 12
Figure 8 1996 Weekday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 19
Figure 9 1996 Weekday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 19
Figure 10 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 20
Figure 11 1996 Saturday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 20
Figure 1 2 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 21
Figure 1 3 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park 21
Figure 14 1996 Weekday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road 22
Figure 15 1996 Weekday Traffic: NYS Routa 25 Westbound
East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road 22
Figure 1 6 1996 Saturday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road 23
Figure 1 7 1996 Saturday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road 23
Figure 1 8 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road 24
Figure 1 9 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road 24
Figure 20 1996 Weekday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus 25
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Figures (Cont'd.)
Figure 21 1996 Weekday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus 25
Figure 22 1996 Saturday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus . 26
Figure 23 1996 Saturday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus . 26
Figure 24 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus . 27
Figure 25 1996 Sunday Traffic: NYS Route 25 Westbound
Narrow River Road to Eastern Terminus 27
Figure 26 Weekday Arrivals - Cross Sound Ferry 34
Figure 27 Weekday Departures - Cross Sound Ferry 34
Figure 28 Saturday Arrivals - Cross Sound Ferry . 35
Figure 29 Saturday Departures - Cross Sound Ferry 35
Figure 30 Sunday Arrivals - Cross Sound Ferry 36
Figure 31 Sunday Departures - Cross Sound Ferry 36
Figure 32 Weekday Arrivals - Sea Jet 37
Figure 33 Weekday Departures - Sea Jet 37
Figure 34 Saturday Arrivals - Sea Jet . 38
Figure 35 Saturday Departures - Sea Jet 38
Figure 36 Sunday Arrivals - Sea Jet 39
Figure 37 Sunday Departures - Sea Jet . 39
Figure 38 Monthly Passenger Carries, Cross Sound Ferry. 50
Figure 39 Total Annual Auto, Truck, and Passenger Carries:
1990 to 1996, Cross Sound Ferry 58
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
vi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I. INTRODUCTION
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A. Purpose of Report
The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to determine the traffic impact of the proposed
construction ofa 155 car, stone surfaced, parking area on a 2.4 acre vacant parcel currently
occupied by mostly low growing disturbance species of vegetation.
The site is located at Orient Point in Orient, New York at the eastern terminus of New York
State Route 25 (Route 25). The project site is zoned R-80 (Residential Low Density A) by
the Town of Southold. The proposed parking area will be used in association with the
adj acent existing vehicular and passenger carrier service owned and operated by Cross Sound
Ferry Services, Inc. The total capacity of existing on-site parking provided by Cross Sound
Ferry Services, Inc. is 309 vehicles. The total on-site parking capacity would be raised to
464 vehicles after construction of the proposed action.
B. Historical Perspective
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has operated the Orient Point passenger and vehicular
carrier service since 1975, when it was purchased from the New London Freight Lines.
Records indicate that marine shipping and passenger service has existed at this site since the
late 1700's. Vehicular carrier service to New London, CT. began in the early 1930s. Interest
in vehicular carrier service was slow at first, however, by 1948, demand had risen. In
response, two new vessels were purchased and the number of trips rose to six per day in an
effort to meet the apparent demand. Demand has continued to steadily rise over the years,
as has the umber of vessels and the number of trips needed per day. Currently, Cross Sound
Ferry Services operates 2 to 6 boats year-round and makes approximately 8 to 24 round-trips
per day between Orient Point, NY and New London, CT., depending on demand.
As the demand for service increased over the past 50 years, so has the need to accommodate
the growing number of passengers and their vehicles on the upland portion of the ferry
property. Based upon a review of historic aerial photographs of the ferry site and
surrounding area, it appears that from 1955 to 1969 ferry parking was primarily limited to
the shoulders of Route 25 and portions of what are now known as the Snack Bar and
Terminal Parcels. Both the main section of the snack bar building and the small shack
(located just to the north of the boat ramp) existed as far back as 1955 and were used in
association with the ferry operation. The 1955 air photo appears to indicate routine dredging
of the bay bottom near the boat loading ramp. It is uncertain where the dredge spoil was
placed at that time.
Disk #390.cross Sound Fony
File: Intro.wpd
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
C. Study Procedures
This study was prepared using the most recent information available for Route 25. The
statistics and conclusions contained herein are based on:
. Several personal, on-site field observations were made to observe the traffic
movements under various conditions.
. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network.
. An analysis was made of the traffic volume data obtained from the New York State
Department of Transportation and the files of Dunn Engineering Associates.
. Supplementary machine traffic counts were collected as necessary to update the
available volume counts.
. An examination was made of the traffic flow on New York State Route 25.
. An evaluation was made of the safety factors by reviewing recent accident records
obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation.
. A trip generation analysis was performed to determine the additional traffic
attributable to the proposed development.
· Capacity analysis were performed at key roadway sections to examine the ability to
accommodate the addition of the site-generated traffic.
. A review of the access arrangements was made.
· An evaluation of the available and proposed parking was made in regard to traffic
circulation, safety, maintenance, and adequacy oflayout.
· Conclusions were made of the traffic impact of the development as a result of the
data and facts gathered in this study.
Disk #3~ross Sound Ferry
File: Intro. wpd
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
II. TRANSPORTATION:
Existing Conditions
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
II
A. Existing Transportation
Services
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 . Description of Access for the Site and Internal Road Circulation
NYS Route 25 (Route 25) is a major east/west highway that provides direct access to the
existing Snack Bar, Terminal, and west Parcels which serve as the staging area for the Cross
Sound Ferry at Orient Point, New York. The Terminal Parcel has two driveways on Route 25.
The western driveway is for entering traffic only and the eastern one is for exiting traffic only.
Vehicles wishing to gain access to the West Parcel for parking may do so by using the
Terminal Parcel driveway and then entering the West Parcel access drive. Vehicles will leave
the West Parcel using the same West Parcel access drive used to enter and will then exit the
site using the exit only driveway. The internal circulation ofthe Terminal Parcel parking lot
is controlled so that traffic will flow in only one direction throughout the entire area of the
parking lot.
The proposed development is to expand the Snack Bar parking lot into the "Trust Parcel" on
the east providing 155 additional parking spaces. The expanded parking lot will thus be the
combination of the Snack Bar Parcel and the Trust Parcel. To access the existing Snack Bar
Parcel and the expanded parking lot, drivers may choose either of the two access drives on the
North/South portion of Route 25. There exists a full access driveway to the parking lots just
north of the Snack Bar and an additional full access drive at the southerly end of the property.
It is proposed that these access points continue to serve the Snack Bar and the Trust Parcels.
Currently there is an existing access road beginning at the northerly lot line of the Trust Parcel,
traversing the Trust Parcel to allow access to the adjacent parcel to the east at the southwest
comer of the Trust Parcel. The purpose of this access road is to allow for servicing of Long
Island Lighting and other public utilities. The public is not allowed beyond a certain point.
This access road is unpaved and in poor condition. Following development of the Trust Parcel
for parking, it is proposed this access road be diverted to the southerly access from Route 25
and along the southerly edge of both the Snack Bar and Trust Parcel parking lots.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Site Access
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I I
I
2. Route 25. Existing Conditions
. Description
New York State Route 25 (Route 25) is the only continuous east-west roadway
serving the Town of South old east of Greenport and is the principal arterial roadway
bringing traffic to the Cross Sound Ferry staging area at Orient, New York. Route
25 is part of the State highway system having its westerly terminus in New York City
and its easterly terminus at the Cross Sound Ferry Terminal in Orient. Through its
length from New York City to Orient, the nature of Route 25 changes frequently,
beginning as a five lane facility in much of the densely populated western section of
Long Island and eventually becoming a two lane rural facility on the eastern end of
Long Island in the Towns of River head and Southold.
. New York State Department of Transportation Volume Data
Within the designated study area for the Cross Sound Ferry project, New York State
Route 25 is a two-lane, rural highway 7.8 miles in length from the intersection of
Route 25 and Main Street (Greenport) to its eastern terminus (Orient). (See Figure
1 for location of roadways and project site). In October 1995, the NYSDOT
conducted weekday traffic volume counts at two locations within the designated
study area. NYSDOT estimated an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 4,200
vehicles for the 5.4 mile section of Route 25 located between Main Street and
Narrow River Road. In this segment of highway, the peak hours of traffic occurred
in the A.M. from 8:00-9:00 A.M. and in the P.M. from 2:00-3:00 P.M., occurring in
the eastbound and westbound direction, respectively. For the 2.4 mile section of
Route 25 east of Narrow River Road, the weekday peak hours occur in the A.M. from
8:00-9:00 A.M. and in the P.M. from 4:00-5:00 P.M. in the eastbound and westbound
directions, respectively. NYSDOT computed an AADT of approximately 2,700
vehicles for this easterly section. Copies of these State volume counts are provided
in the Appendix of this report in the section entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts'.
. Summer Volume Data
Dunn Engineering Associates (DEA) completed a weekday traffic volume count for
Route 25, east of Main Street, Greenport, which is west of Narrow River Road, in
August 1996 to coincide with the State count location. The three days of data
collected yielded an estimated one-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 5,901
Disk #390, Cross Sound. Ferry
File: Route 25
7
--------'-----------
~
.
I
rf.*A'l.(j:'J
pJ-O
~..J,.S~
, (--~
# "~-
q~, -:/'.
I 'l
'\ ' \ ' ..
I \ I'~"" '
, , p
,125'('~
,) "1"-'
'."', IN) I)';~(lr I'
FIGURE 1
STUDY AREA AND COUNT LOCATIONS
DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
SCALE,
DATE,
PAGE,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vehicles in the eastbound direction and 6,164 vehicles in the westbound direction, for
a two-way ADT of 12,065 vehicles. This number is 187.3% higher than the 4,200
vehicle AADT for the same section of highway provided by NYSDOT, who did their
count in October. It must be recognized that the State generated AADT represents the
Average Annual Daily Traffic and thus is proported to be an average over the entire
year. The DEA count represents the Average Daily Traffic for a weekday period in
August of 1996 and thus represents the summer peak traffic. Copies of these traffic
counts are contained in the Appendix of this report in the section entitled, "Traffic
Volume Counts".
During the same period in August 1996, DEA also collected traffic volume counts on
Route 25 east of Narrow River Road and west of the entrance to the Cross Sound
Ferry facility in Orient. The ADT for the August 1996 count east of Narrow River
Road was 5,620 vehicles as compared to the State's AADT of 2,700 vehicles, a
108.1 % increase. At the easterly end of Route 25, just west of the Cross Sound Ferry
facility in August 1996, the ADT was found to be 3,945 vehicles.
Thus, along New York State Route 25 in August 1996, the Average Daily Traffic was
found to vary from a high of 12,065 vehicles per day on the west to a low of 3,945
vehicles in the vicinity of the easterly terminus.
. Cross Sound Ferry Services Traffic versus Background Traffic
The volume data obtained in 1996 just west of Main Street in Greenport was
compared to the hourly traffic volume originating at and destined for the Cross Sound
Ferry Services Terminal in Orient. The volume of traffic originating and arriving at
the Orient terminal was calculated by determining the number of vehicles carried by
arriving and departing vessels and by dividing the number of passenger walk-ons by
an occupancy factor to arrive at the number of vehicles the walk-on passengers
generate. The comparison of background traffic versus traffic associated with the
Cross Sound Ferry Services Terminal on Route 25 from the intersection of Suffolk
County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park is presented in Figures 2 through 7. It
can be seen in these figures that during the peak hours of traffic flow, the percentage
of traffic associated with the Orient terminal is minimal when compared to the
background traffic on Route 25.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Route 25
9
I
FIGURE 2
I 1998 Weekday Background/Ferry Tralllc
NYS Route 25 EMtbound
SI.IfoIlCOunlyRoed 4810 E.INrlonOMnl:Pwt{
I
I
I i -
u I.n~_ I
I !
___UT_
I _
I
'.
I
I ~- '..,r_ u_ w_ ~- n_ ..'..... '......
n_ 'n_ ..- n_
-
I 1998 Weekday Background/Ferry Trame
NYS Roue. 25 Westbound
UaIl. Ccu1ly Roed 48 to E. M.non Orient Pwtc
I
I -
I -
j
I I - I ==..":- I
I
I -
I
I ~- w,_ ".11- 0<- ~- n_ w_ ~- n_ w,_ '......
..,,- ,,..... ..- n_
-
I FIGURE 3
I 10
I
FIGURE 4
I 1886 Saturday Tralllc
NYS Route 25 Eastbound
N.-row RIver R<*i 10 e.1tIm T"",*-,,
I M
I
I i M
U 100__ I
I I
.,,-"~-
~ ,.
I
I .
I "M N'M '."- n.II_ 'UM "M NM UM HM NM "M HM I."""
-
I 1886 Saturday Tralllc
NYS Route 25 Westbound
N~ RNer Roed 10 EntIm T....
I M
I
I j M
I J I.~'M'_ 1
.-....,-...T_
I ,.
..
I
I .
I HM ,....- 'r-'''' "M uM uN UN UM UN "N .."... ,."...
HM
-
I FIGURE 5
I 11
I
FIGURE 6
I 1996 Sunday Traffic
NYS Route 25 Eastbound
Nwn:tw Rtv.r R<*ta Eutem T~
I .
I
I i
u 1..-'- I
I I .
____QT_
.
!
I
I
I "-11_ ..- "- H_ "- H_ w_ H_ H'_ ,.."....
-
I 1996 Sunday Traffic
NYS Route 25 Westbound
NM'oW RlYw RC*! to EllAim T""*'"
I -
I
I j -
I I I.~-- I
___"'T'-
! .
I
I
I H- '''''''' ".1!00Xl0 .t-'... ..- H_ w,_ '."'"
"- "- w_ H_
-
I FIGURE 7
I 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Vehicle Mix, Route 25
On August 12,1996, a Tuesday, a study was done of the vehicular mix on Route 25
east of Main Street from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. The vehicle mix consisted of
passenger cars, recreational vehicles, buses and trucks. A total of 823 vehicles were
counted. The observed counts were as follows: 799 passenger cars (97.1%), 4
recreational vehicles (0.5%), 3 buses (0.4%) , and 17 trucks (2.0%).
On August 13, 1996, a Wednesday, a similar vehicular mix study was conducted on
Route 25 east of Main Street from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. A total of964 vehicles
were counted. The observed counts were as follows: 913 passenger cars (94.7%), 12
recreational vehicles (1.2%), 4 buses (0.4%), and 35 trucks (3.7%).
Based on the information obtained from both studies, the A.M. percentages are
approximately the same as the P.M. percentages, with passenger cars being the
primary means of transportation on Route 25 east of Main Street. These data are
summarized in Table 1.
August 12, 1996 August 13. 1997
3:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 10:00 A.M. 12:00 Noon
Passenger Cars 799 97.1% 913 94.7%
Recreation Vehicles 4 0.5% 12 , 1.2%
Buses 3 0.4% 4 0.4%
Trucks 17 2.0% 35 3.7%
TOTAL VEHICLES 823 100% 964 100%
Table 1
Vehicle Mix
Route 25 East of Main Street
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Route 25
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Latest State Accident Surveillance System (SASS) Data from the Intersection
of NYS Route 25 and Main Street (Greenport) to the Eastern End of Route 25
The following paragraphs present the results of an accident analysis concerning the two-lane,
rural section of New York State Route 25 from the intersection of Route 25 and Main Street
(Greenport) to its eastern terminus. This 7.8 mile section serves 4,200 vehicles per day on
the 5.4 mile portion west of Narrow River Road and 2,700 vehicles per day on the 2.4 mile
eastern portion, based on NYSDOT AADT estimates. Reconstruction of the stated Route
25 section occurred from June 1994 to October 1995 and resulted in safety improvements
to the facility, including widening the shoulders.
Two sets of accident data were utilized in computing accident rates for periods before and
after the discussed Route 25 safety improvements. State Accident Surveillance System
(SASS) data, which included all reportable and non-reportable accidents, was obtained for
1991 through June 1995. In addition, the Accident Records Bureau of the New York State
Department of Motor Vehicles provided abstracts of reportable accident cases from 1994 to
1996. Table 2 contains a summary of the available accident data. The table shows two of
the accidents in the six year time frame involved a fatality, and injuries were sustained in 51
of the 66 (77%) reportable accidents. Note that the number of non-reportable accidents for
1995 and 1996 are estimated based on a 1.94: 1 ratio, as determined from the SASS data, of
non-reportable to reportable accidents.
Total Non- Pedestrian!
Year Reportable Fatal Injury Bicyclist
1991 26 14 0 8 a
1992 25 16 a 8 a
1993 , 36 29 1 6 a
, 45
1994 , 28 a 13 2
1995 38 25' 1 9 1
1996 24 16' a 7 2
Note: Non-reportable accidents are those of lesser severity which are not required to be reported
to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
. Estimated
Table 2. Accident Summary
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Accident-Analysis
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3 lists annual accident rates, incorporating all reportable and non-reportable accidents,
for 1991 to 1996. The table reveals the accident rates varied from 2.25 accidents per million
vehicle-miles of travel (ACCIMVM) in 1996 to 4.23 ACCIMVM in 1994, averaging 3.04
ACCIMVM over the six year period. For the purpose of comparison, the average accident
rate, based on 1992 to 1995 data, for a two-lane, rural New York State highway is 2.75
ACCIMVM.
Year
Accident Rate
(per million vehicle-miles of travel)
-
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
2.44
2.35
3.38
4.23
3.57
2.25
~-
Table 3, Accident Rates
Although the average accident rate for Route 25 exceeds that of similar New York State
highways, special consideration must be given to the effect of the completed safety
improvements for the study area. Specifically, a comparison of accident rates before and
after the safety improvements, 2.72 ACCIMVM for 1991-1993 and 2.25 ACCIMVM for
1996 respectively, yielded a 17 percent decrease in the accident rate for the post-construction
period. Furthermore, the 1996 accident rate fell below the stated average for two-lane, rural
New York State highways.
It should be noted that the calculated accident rates are based on the 1995 AADT count data
provided by New York State. Based on the summer 1996 traffic counts collected by Dunn
Engineering, we presume that the AADT calculated using October count data and the State
seasonal adjustment factors may be understating the actual AADT. However, for the purpose
of providing a conservative assessment we have based our report on the State figures.
Table 4 presents a breakdown of individual reportable accidents which occurred in 1996
within the study area (mile marker 67.2 to 75.0) since the completion of the State project.
It should be noted that in 1996 no accident clusters exist, thereby no single or multiple
problem areas are indicated. Four of the eight accidents indicated in the table involved a
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Table-2 Section.wpd
15
-------------------
Mile Date Time Type Severity Pavement Light Comments
Marker Condition Condition
67.4 7/5/96 4:00 P.M. Pedestrian Injury Dry Day Pedestrian error/confusion
67.5 8/31/96 8:00 A.M. Fixed object Injury Dry Day Driver fell asleep
68.3 10/16/96 3:00 P.M. Bicycle Injury Dry Day Bicyclist failed to yield R.O.W.
69.3 6/8/96 N/A Other PDO Dry Night Collision with animal
69.8 Yz/96 5:00 P.M. Fixed object Injury Snow Night Pavement slippery
70.4 4/14/96 1 :00 A.M. Fixed object Injury Dry Night Driver fell asleep
72.6 4/21/96 12:00 P.M. Right angle Injury Dry Day Drive inattentiveness
74.7 4/11/96 6:00 A.M. Fixed object Injury Dry Dawn Driver fell asleep
Table 4
1996 Report Accidents
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Table-2 Section.wpd
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fixed object collision, and none of the accidents exhibited a particular trend with respect to
roadway configuration. In fact, based on the comments listed from the accident reports
prepared by police on the scene, the cause of each accident can be attributed to human error
or weather conditions or other natural phenomenon. This finding, coupled with the
previously discussed accident rate comparisons, suggest that the Route 25 study area
currently operates at an acceptable safety level and there are no identifiable problems.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Table.2 Section.wpd
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. 7 Day Traffic Volume Counts for Route 25 Immediately West of the Proposed
Project
Dunn Engineering Associates completed a detailed traffic volume count on New York State
Route 25 immediately west of the proposed project for an eleven day period in August 1996
and a seven day period in August 1997. The specific count location resided between Orient
Beach Road and the existing Ferry parking lot. Figures 8 through 25 depict the average
hourly traffic plots for weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays for the count locations, as
determined from the field study results, for 1996 and 1997, respectively. Average daily
traffic estimates revealed a 1.9 percent increase in traffic, from 3,945 vehicles in 1996 to
4,023 vehicles in 1997, between the two study periods. On average, Route 25 weekday
traffic volume counts reached a peak in the 9:00 A.M. hour in the eastbound direction and
the 6:00 P.M. hour in the westbound direction, and peak traffic levels occurred, in general,
in the mid-day hours on weekends.
In addition, DEA conducted traffic counts in August of 1996 and 1997 at a location just east
of the intersection of Route 25 with County Road 48/Main Street in Greenport. A
comparison of total daily count volumes between August 1996 and August 1997 showed no
increase in traffic.
It should be noted that these counts focused on a single week of data in both years and
growth patterns could be overshadowed by conditions on individual days. Growth factors
are best determined by examining data from permanent count stations operated by the State
or County to determine an area's trends. Until recently, the North Fork of Long Island did
not have a permanent count station and the State primarily relied on data from its Route 27
permanent count station in Southampton to predict trends for the East End. The new
permanent count station located on Route 25 in Southold has not been functional for a
sufficient length oftime to provide historic growth statistics.
The traffic volume counts can be found in the Appendix of this report. Figure 1 shows the
locations of counts collected for this Study and obtained from NYSDOT.
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic Volume Count
18
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
o !l !!l g ~ 8 ~ g ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ o~!l~!!l8g~~g8~~~g~~~~g8~
12AM 12AM
1 AM 1AM
2AM I 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
SAM CIl SAM CIl
r:: r::
6AM a: 6AM a:
;;c ~ ;;c ~
7AM oZ CD 7AM o Z CD
8AM o-<CD 8AM o-<CD
SCl>cn SCI>cn
9AM ~::O:E 9AM ~ ::0 :E
::! ::00 -! ~O "
" 3 10AM geC'D 3 10AM III e C'D G>
G> (1) 11 AM ~ CD C'D (1) 11 AM ~ CD C'D c:
c: 0 CD I\J ,... 0 CD I\J ,... :0
:0 - 12 PM SOle. - 12 PM SOle. m
m 0 rn~D) 0 rnmD)
<0 III 1 PM s: (1) '< III 1 PM s: III '< CXl
'< III CIl -I '< III CIl
2PM :J. - 2PM :J. CT -I
o 0'" ., go"
3PM :JOD) 3PM oeD)
oe
4PM :J.::l ~ 4PM :J.::l ~
(1) a. -- CD c. __
~ C') ~ C')
SPM "U SPM "U
III III
6PM ~ 6PM ~
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
-
lD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
o ~ 8 @ 8 ~ ~ g 8 g ~ @ ~ ~ 8 o ~ 8 @ 8 ~ ~ g 8 g ~ @ ~ ~ 8
12AM 12AM
1 AM 1 AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
SAM (J) SAM (J)
c c
6AM a: 6AM a:
;;;: - ;;;: -
7AM a Z CD 7AM oZ CD
8AM o-<CD 8AM g-<CD
5 en en :J en en
;;~en -<
9AM 9AM ;0 ;0 en "T1
"T1 ::i ::i 00 A)
10AM g c:: A) 10AM 1llC:: Ci)
Ci). 3 a. -_ 3 0.- _
C CD 11 AM .j>,. CD C CD 11 AM .j>,. CD C C
JJ 00 I\) .., 00 I\) .., JJ
0 8" 01 Q, 0 8" 01 Q, m
m - 12 PM - 12 PM
CJ !11 :2: A) CJ !11 m A) .....
..... III 1 PM ;s:: CD '< III 1 PM ;s:: III '< 0
..... '< III CJl -t '< III CJl -t
2PM :J. - 2PM :J. s:
00-.., 00",
3PM :JOA) 3PM ~ c:: A)
Oc:: = :J. a. =
4PM :J. :J 4PM
CD Q. _. l1> -.
a (") :J (")
-
SPM \l SPM \l
III III
x- ..,
6PM 6PM ,..
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
o
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
o ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ g ~ g 8 ~ o ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ g ~ g 8 ~
12AM 12AM
1 AM 1AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
5AM Ul 5AM Ul
c c
6AM a: 6AM a:
;;:Z~ ;;:
7AM 7AM oZ ~
~-<U) 8AM o-<U)
8AM senU) senU)
~ ;:0 Q) ..:< Q)
9AM 9AM ;0 ;:0 en '"T1
'"T1 -1 ;0 0 en -1 00 15
10AM g c: C 10AM III c: C
G) 3 a...... 3 a. .....
~ CD ::s ~ CD ::s c:
c: CD 11 AM CD 11 AM :c
:c 0 (l)N C. 0 ~ N C. m
m - 12 PM cOlD) - 12 PM 00lD)
0 m:E,< 0 mm,< .....
..... l>> 1 PM s: CD -I l>> 1 PM s: l>> -I I\)
(j) '< III Ul '< III Ul
2PM 2PM .....
:J. ,...... .., ::I. C" .,
oC"D) goD)
::! 0 3PM
3PM o c: ~ o c: ~
:J.:J -. :::J.:J _.
4PM ~a.(") 4PM ~a.(")
- -
5PM "U 5PM "U
III III
6PM '* 6PM '*
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
8 N 8 ~ 8 N N 8
0 g 8 g g 0 g g 8 g
12AM 12AM
lAM 1 AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
5AM 5AM
6AM m 6AM m
is: ~ is: ~
7AM III Z CO 7AM III Z CO
::!. -< 6' -< CO
8AM g en CO 8AM ::! en en
o en 0
9AM ::!. ::0 :E 9AM ::!. ::0 :E
-f CDo -1 ~ 0 "TI
"TI ::! Ci)
3' lOAM -cCD 3 lOAM -cCD
C5 ;;? CD CD "U ..... CD
CD CD 11 AM III CD C
C 11 AM ~N " ~ I\) " JJ
JJ 0 6' 01 Q, 0 12 PM 6' 01 Q, m
m - 12 PM -
0 z:ED) 0 z m D) ...
... D.l 1 PM ~CD'< D.l 1 PM ~ D.l '< ~
01 '< ~ ~ ~ '< o CIl ~
2PM 2PM ~ET
:;0 0" ., :;0 0 .,
3PM _.0 D) 3PM ;::' c: D)
< C = ~ :J =
~ :J 4PM
4PM :::0 Co-. ::0 C. --
o 0 o 0
5PM III 5PM III
c.. c..
6PM 6PM
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
I\)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
8 '" N ~ '" 8 ~ ~ 8 '" ~ ~ 8 .. ~
0 l!J l!J 8 l!J l!J 0 l!J 8 l!J l!J l!J
12AM 12 AM
1 AM 1 AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
5AM 5AM
6AM m 6AM fI1
s: Z ...a. s: ...a.
7AM 7AM III Z CD
~. -< CD :>. -<
o CD
8AM g en CD 8AM :> en en
o en 0
9AM :>. ;:0 en 9AM ii:. ;:0 en "
=! (1)0 -1 :> 0 I>>
" 10AM ~ c: I>> 10AM -c: C5
C5 3 -u-- 3 -u-- C
III CD C III CD C
CD 11 AM CD 11 AM ~ '" ., :1J
C ~ '" ., 0 m
:1J 0 8" 01 Q, 12 PM 8" 01 Q,
- 12 PM -
m 0 z~1>> 0 zml>> ....
1 PM ~CD'< Q) 1 PM III Q) '< 0>
.... Q) aUl
-.j '< ~ !e. -t '< ~a:-t
2PM :;0 C" ., 2PM ::0 0 .,
3PM -. 0 I>> 3PM <" c: I>>
< c: ~ ~ :J ~
~:J
4PM ;0 ~-- 4PM :::0 c. -.
o n o n
5PM III 5PM III
a. a.
6PM 6PM
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
CD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 g ~ g 8 '" '" ~ ~ 8 .. ~
o l!l 8 0 l!l l!l 8 l!l l!l
12AM 12AM
1 AM 1 AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
SAM SAM
fT1 m
6AM 6AM ;so;:
7AM ~ Z .... 7AM III Z ....
5' -< CD 5' -< CD
8AM :::I en CD 8AM :::I (J) CD
9AM ~ ::0 en 9AM ~ ::0 en "TI
(f) 0 en --! ~ 0 en
"TI --! 10AM ::!.C 10AM -c CD
3 "U - c 3 "U - C
C5 III (l) ::s III (l) ::s c:
(l) 11 AM (l) 11 AM ~ I\J Q. JJ
c: ~ I\J Q.
JJ 0 (j01Q) 0 (j01Q) m
- 12 PM - 12 PM
m 0 iir:E,< 0 zm,< ....
.... Q) 1 PM =l (l) -I Q) 1 PM ~Q)-I <Xl
<0 '< o UI '< o UI
2PM :E-., 2PM :EET.,
;:0 CT Q) ;:0 0 Q)
3PM <.g ~ 3PM <'C ==
~::1 - CD ::1 _.
4PM ;:0 a. n 4PM ;;a.n
0 0
SPM III SPM III
0. 0.
6PM 6PM
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
"'"
-------------------
12AM
lAM
2AM
3AM
4AM
5AM
6AM
7AM
8AM
9AM
"TI -! lOAM
@ ~ 11 AM
RI 2. 12 PM
li? 1 PM
I\J '<
.... 2PM
3PM
4PM
5PM
6PM
7PM
8PM
9PM
10 PM
11 PM
I\)
(11
Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour)
o
l!l
8
'"
l!l
8
l!l
~
z """
Cll
=lZCD
~-<CD
::0 en Q)
-. :::0
~ 0 :E
::0 S. CD
lil CD CD
a. I\) ""
() 01 e.
~:ED)
!!!. CD '<
(D C/I --I
3 - -,
-l 0" "'"
(DOD)
35 =R
:5' a. --
c (")
III
12AM
1 AM
2AM
3AM
4AM
5AM
6AM
7AM
8AM.
9AM
-! lOAM
3
CD llAM
o
- 12 PM
li? 1 PM
'<
2PM
3PM
4PM
5PM
6PM
7PM
8PM
9PM
10 PM
11 PM
Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour)
o
l!l
8 l!l
'"
8
'"
l!l
~ """
a Z CD
:IE -< CD
::0 en Q)
-. :::0
~ o:E "TI
61 s. CDCD G5
III CD C
a. I\) "" :xl
OOle. m
m m D)
m Q) '< I\J
- 0
lD C/I --I
30:-'
-lO "'"
lD c:: D)
~. a.:J =R
:l -.
C (")
III
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
8 N N ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 N ~ ~
0 l'J l'J 8 l'J 0 l'J l'J l'J
12AM 12AM
1 AM 1 AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
5AM 5AM
6AM z 6AM z
III Z ""'" III ""'"
7AM a-<CD 7AM a Z CD
8AM ~ en CD 8AM ~-<CD
::0 en ::0 en en
9AM -. :::c 9AM ~.:::c en
(ii 0 en "
" --! 10AM .., c: I>> --! 10AM .., 0 I>> G>
3 ::0__ 3 ::0 s._
C5 2(1)c 2(1)c C
C (1) 11 AM a. I\.) ... (1) 11 AM a. I\.) ... :xl
:xl 0 6" c.n C. 0 6" c.n C. m
- 12 PM - 12 PM
m 0 ~ ~ I>> 0 ~ m I>> I\,)
I\,) II) 1 PM !!!. (1) '< II) 1 PM (/l II) '< I\,)
(,) '< CD en -I '< CD en -I
2PM 3- 2PM 3ET
-i CT ... -i 0 ...
3PM CDOI>> 3PM CD c: I>>
4PM ~. ~ 3; 4PM ~. a 3;
c (') c (')
5PM (/l 5PM (/l
6PM 6PM
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
0>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vehicle Count Vehicle Count
(vehicles per hour) (vehicles per hour)
8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 N N ~ ~ 8
0 g g 0 g g 8 g
12AM 12AM
1 AM 1 AM
2AM 2AM
3AM 3AM
4AM 4AM
5AM 5AM
6AM z 6AM z
IllZ~ III
7AM 7AM =l Z ~
a-<CD ~-<CD
8AM ~ en CD 8AM ;0 en CD
9AM ~:oen 9AM :C" :0 en
-1 !!l 0 en ::! !!l 0 en "
" 3 10AM ;0 c:: c 3 10AM ;0 c:: C G)
G) 0- 0-
CD 11 AM III CD ~ CD 11 AM III CD ~ C
C Co I\) Q, ~ I\) Q, ::c
::c 0 0 m
m - 12 PM SOlO) - 12 PM 0010)
0 1 PM ~~'< 0 1 PM ~m,< I\J
I\J Q) !!l. CD -t Q) !!l. Q) -t ~
01 '< CD C/l '< CD C/l
2PM 3-"", 2PM 3 a: "'"
-l C'" 0) -loO)
3PM CDO:::lt 3PM CD c:: :::It
35-. 3 :J _.
4PM S" a. (") 4PM S" a. (")
c c
5PM VI 5PM VI
6PM 6PM
7PM 7PM
8PM 8PM
9PM 9PM
10 PM 10 PM
11 PM 11 PM
I\)
.....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. Availability of Public Transportation
The Cross Sound Ferry facility is fully accessible to the bus services provided by Suffolk
Transit. At present, one bus route provides service to the site. The S-92 bus operates along
Route 25 between Orient Beach State Park and East Hampton. The S-92 bus passes by the
site throughout the day.
The first three S-92 bus runs do not leave the ferry parking lot, but rather leave from
Greenport, the first at 6:15 A.M. and arriving at Riverhead at 6:55 A.M. The next two S-92
runs leave Greenport at 6:55 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. and arrive at East Hampton at 9:15 A.M.
and 10:15 A.M., respectively. Then bus service begins departing the ferry parking lot
approximately every hour, from 8:40 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. The ride from the ferry parking lot
to East Hampton is approximately 2-1/2 hours.
The S-92 bus ridership along the entire line (a 72-mile stretch) was 18,278 people in June
1997,21,259 people in July 1997, and 20,761 people in August 1997. During the offpeak
months, ridership drops to 14,000 people per month.
Cross Sound Ferry has engaged in a partnership with Trolleys of Long Island to transport
passengers between Tanger Outlet Center in Riverhead and Orient Point to meet the ferry
twice daily.
People interested in using this service can park their car at Tanger and depart at 8:30 AM
aboard a trolley, board a ferry at 10 AM to New London, and then have the option of
boarding a bus to Foxwoods Casino. The trolley meets passengers on the 7:00 PM ferry
from New London that evening and returns to Tanger at 8:30 PM. This service is in its
second year of operation and is available July 2, 1997 through November 30, 1997. The cost
is $25 per person which includes the trolley and ferry fare.
In addition, the trolley service is also used to transport travelers from Connecticut via the
ferry to patronize Tanger Outlet Center. The trolley meets the 9:00 AM from New London
and returns in the evening to meet the 8:00 PM ferry from Orient Point. This service has also
been used on a charter basis to bring groups from Connecticut to visit North Fork wineries
and the village of Greenport.
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) service is also available via the Ronkonkoma Branch of the
LIRR. Greenport is at the easternmost end of the Ronkonkoma Branch of the LIRR. The
Greenport station is located at the intersection of Wiggins Street and 4th Street,
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Public Transportation
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approximately 1.1 miles south of the Route 25-County Road 48 intersection. The S-92 bus
passes one block north of the station. The train schedule is presented in Table 5, Long Island
Rail Road Schedule:
Weekdays
I Eastbound Wastbound
I
~
Departs Arrives Departs I Arrivas
Penn Station Greenport Greanport Penn Station
I 7:39 A.M. 10:26 A.M. 5:29 A.M. 8:20 A.M.
5:41 P.M. 8:18 P.M. 11:30A.M. 2:30 P.M.
I 9:39 P.M. 12:29 P.M.
9:12 A.M. 12:00 P.M. I 1:17 P.M. 4:05 P.M.
2:12 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 6:17 P.M. 9:05 P.M.
Weekends
Table 5
Long Island Rail Road Schedule
Bus service is also available to Greenport from Queens and Manhattan via Sunrise Express.
The Queens collection point is directly in front of Queens College. The Manhattan
collection point is on the southwest comer of 44th Street and 3rd Avenue. Both operate on the
same schedule. There are three collection times: 11:00 A.M., 2:30 P.M. and 6:30 P.M. The
rides are approximately 2 to 2-1/2 hours long.
The use of the existing bus (S-92), trolley, Sunrise Express and train (LIRR) services by the
patrons of the Cross Sound Ferry facility significantly reduce the traffic impact of the ferry
facility on the surrounding street and highway network. In addition, the ferry serves as a
cnticallink in Long Island's mass transportation system by connecting these facilities with
the New London multi-modal transportation center.
It should be noted that on the New London side of the Sound, the Cross Sound Ferry
terminal is located within walking distance of the New London Transportation Center which
is a multi-modal facility, including inter- and intra-State Greyhound bus and Amtrak rail
service, local bus service and a taxi stand as well as ferry service to Block Island and Fishers
Island. There are frequent connections to Providence, Boston and points north, as well as,
New Haven and all major cities along the southern coast of Connecticut.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Public Transportation
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. Cross Sound Ferry Services
. Transportation Link
Since the 1700's, freight and passenger service has existed from Orient Point to New
London. In 1923 the service began transporting autos. Its role as a transportation link
serving interstate commerce has become increasingly important. The service allows
efficient movement of people and goods to and from Long Island and New England
without a round about trip through New York City. While serving as a convenience to
its users, this service helps reduce the traffic loads on the congested bridges and
expressways of New York City, Westchester County and Nassau County and the 1-95
Corridor in Connecticut. The reduction in traffic in these areas helps reduce carbon
monoxide generation due to congestion in the New York City area which is a non-
attainment area for carbon monoxide. Further, the use of the service reduces vehicle
miles traveled by automobiles by shortening the distance of automotive trips and
replacing a portion of the trip with a mass carrier; both important goals for Suffolk
County, which is a non-attainment area for ozone pollution.
. Cross Sound Ferry Services Schedules
The schedules from May 1 through September 30, 1997 for the Cross Sound Ferry
services can be seen in Tables 6 and 7. Also shown are the arrivals and departures of the
Sea-Jet I high speed passenger-only vessel in Table 8.
. Trip Passenger and Vehicle Data
The number of passengers arriving and departing on the Cross Sound Ferry was
determined. Figures 26 through 31 depict the number of passengers arriving and
departing at Orient Point during the August 8-18, 1997 time period via the regular auto
vessel service. The number of passengers was compared to the number of vehicles
arriving on the Cross Sound vessels, as can be found in .Peak Hours of Use" section, in
order to determine the vehicle occupancy.
The average vehicle occupancy for arriving traffic for a weekday, Saturday, and Sunday
can be seen in the tables provided at the end of this section. These tables show that the
average vehicle occupancy during the week is 2.34 persons/vehicle. The vehicle
occupancy for Saturday was determined to be 2.66 persons/vehicle and Sunday's vehicle
occupancy was determined to be 2.74 persons/vehicle.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: F- Trip Information
30
-------------------
May 1 through September 30, 1997
May 1 through 21 May 22, 27 Ma~ 23, 24, May 28 through June 19 June 20 September 2 throu~h 30 September September
5,28 thro::a::, (except September ,3,4) 2 3&4
Septem r
1
--- ------ _.n__ - .------ r------ t-- ----
FrI:.r, & MOnda~ Frld':T,& Mon~ Saturday Dally Frld':T,.& Monda~ Saturday
Sun 8Y throug Sun ay throua.,: Sun y thro~
Thursday & Thurs y Thu By
Saturday
7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 AM. 7:00 AM. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 AM. 7:00 A.M. 7:00 A.M.
9:00 AM. 9:00 AM. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 8:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 8:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M.
10:00 AM. (10:ooA.M.) 10:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 11 :00 AM. 10:00 A.M. 9:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 9:00 AM. 10:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M. 11:ooA.M. 11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 11:ooA.M. 10:00 A.M. 11:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 11:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 11:00A.M.
1:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 12:00 Noor 12:00 Noor 3:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 11:00A.M. 12:00 Noor 3:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 11:00AM. 1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M. (2:00 P.M.) 2:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 12:00 Noor 1:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 12:00 Noor 2:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M.
5:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 8:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 8:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M.
6:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. 8:45 P.M. 8:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 8:45 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 8:45 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M.
9:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 8:45 P.M.
_. -
9:45 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 7:00.P.M. 6:00 P.M.
- -------- --
8:00 P.M. 8:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 8:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M.
.
9:00 P.M. 9:00 P.M. 8:00 P.M. 9:00 P.M. 8:00 P.M.
____._u . - _.....,-
9:45 P.M. 9:45 P.M. 9:00 P.M. 9:45 P.M. 8:45 P.M.
------- - - ---- _~_ _-0 ---- ----- -------. -.---.----..-- _____n_ ---------- ---. - - ---
9:45 P.M.
( ) = Saturday only
Table 6
Approximate Departure Time from Orient Point - Cross Sound Ferry Service
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
ile: Departure-Table
31
-------------------
May 1 through September 30,1997
May 1 through 21 May 22, 27 Mal 23. 24, May 28 through June 19 June 20 September 2 throu~h 30 September Septamber
5,26 throus::, (except September ,3,4) 2 3&4
Septem r
1
----.
FrI:'y' & Mon~ Frld'Z, & Monda~ Saturday Dally Frldal. & Monda~ Saturday
Sun ay thorug Sun y lhroUs,:'y Sun ay throu~
Thuraday & Thura Thura ay
Saturday
8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M. 8:20 A.M.
9:20 AM. (9:20 A.M.) 9:20 A.M. 9:20 A.M. 9:20 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 9:20 A.M. 9:20 A.M. 9:20 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 10:20 AM. 9:20 A.M. 9:20 A.M.
10:20 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 10:20 AM 10:20 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 12:20 P.M. 10:20 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 12:20 P.M. 11:20AM. 10:20 A.M. 10:20 AM
12:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 11:20 A.M. 11:20 A.M. 2:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 11:20 A.M. 11:20 A.M. 2:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 11:20A.M. 12:20 P.M.
1:20 P.M. (1:20 P.M.) 1:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M.
2:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 3:20 P.M. 1:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M.
4:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 2:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M.
5:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 3:20 P.M. 3:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 3:20 P.M. 3:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 3:20 P.M. 5:20 P.M.
6:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M.
8:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M. 10:05 P.M. 5:20 P.M. 5:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M. 5:20 P.M. 5:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M. 5:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M.
9:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 6:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M.
--..-
10:20 P.M. 7:20 P.M. 7:20 P.M. 7:20 P.M. 7:20 P.M. 7:20 P.M.
-----------..
8:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M. 8:20.P.M. 8:20 P.M. 8:20 P.M.
. --~-----
9:20 P.M. 9:20 P.M. 9:20 P.M. 9:20 P.M. 10:05 P.M.
---- -- f--u - ---
10:20 P.M. 10:20 P.M. 10:20 P.M. 10:20 P.M.
---- ------- ..-.-...-.-.
11:05 P.M.
( ) = Saturday only
Table 7
Approximate Arrival Time to Orient Point - Cross Sound Ferry Service
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
i1e: Arrival-Table
32
.
.
. Departing from Orient Point Arriving at Orient Point
. 8:00 A.M. 7:40 A.M.
f----
. 10:00 A.M. 9:40 A.M.
. 12:00 Noon* 11 :40 A.M. *
~-- --.- --
6:00 P.M. 5:40 P.M.
. 8:00 P.M. 7:40 P.M.
. 9:45 P.M. * 9:40 P.M. *
. * Operates on limited days throughout the year
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Table 8
Schedule of High Speed Passenger Service
. Sea-Jet I
May 1 thru November 30. 1997
. Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Schedule Table 33
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
5 200
I
-
~
~ 150
c:
Q}
CI)
CI)
III 100
a.
...
:;, 200
o
I
-
~
~ 150
c:
Q}
CI)
CI)
III 100
a.
FIGURE 26
Weekday Arrivals - Cross Sound Ferry Services
300
250
50
o
8AM 10AM 12N 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM
Time
Weekday Departures - Cross Sound Ferry Services
300
250
50
o
7AM 9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM
8AM 10AM 12N 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
Time
FIGURE 27
34
I FIGURE 28
I Saturday Arrivals - Cross Sound Ferry Services
350
I 300
I .... 250
~
0
:c
I ""- 200
~
Q)
Cl
c: 150
Q)
I Ul
Ul
tll
a. 100
I 50
I 0
SAM 10AM 12 N 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
I 9AM 11 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PM
Time
I
I Saturday Departures - Cross Sound Ferry Services
350
I 300
I .... 250
:1
0
:c
I ""- 200
~
Q)
Cl
c: 150
Q)
I Ul
Ul
tll
a. 100
I 50
I 0
7AM 9AM 11 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PM 7 PM 9PM 11 PM
I 8AM 10AM 12N 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
Time
I FIGURE 29
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
450
400
350
...
:J 300
0
I
-
~ 250
Q)
Cl
c: 200
Q)
(/)
(/)
t'll 150
c..
100
50
0
5 350
o
~ 300
(/)
...
~ 250
c:
5: 200
(/)
t'll
c.. 150
FIGURE 30
Sunday Arrivals - Cross Sound Ferry Services
8AM 10AM 12N 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
9AM 11 AM 1 PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11 PM
Time
Sunday Departures - Cross Sound Ferry Services
500
450
400
100
50
o
7AM 9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM
8AM 10AM 12N 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM
Time
FIGURE 31
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FiGURE 3~
Weekday Arrivals - Sea Jet I
Orient Point
350
300
....
:::l 250
0
:I:
-..
Ul 200
....
Q)
C>
c: 150
Q)
Ul
Ul
ell 100
a..
50
0
7:40 AM
....
:::l
o 200
:I:
Us
....
~ 150
c:
Q)
Ul
Ul 100
ell
a..
9:40 AM
11:40AM
5:40 PM
7:40 PM
9:40 PM
Time
Weekday Departures - Sea Jet I
Orient Point
300
250
50
o
8AM
10AM
NOON
6PM
8PM
9:45 PM
Time
FIGURE 33
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The average vehicle occupancy for departing traffic for a weekday, Saturday, and Sunday
can be seen in the tables contained at the end of this section. These tables show that the
average vehicle occupancy during the week is 2.39 persons/vehicle. The vehicle
occupancy for Saturday was determined to be 2.68 persons/vehicle and Sunday's vehicle
occupancy was determined to be 2.85 persons/vehicle.
It should be noted that the occupancy rates calculated above are based on the total
number of passengers carried versus the total number of vehicles carried on the auto
vessels. It has been established by observation the auto vessels carry some portion of
passengers who are not associated with the vehicles being carried by the vessel and are
either drop-offs at the terminal or are persons who parked their vehicles at the terminal
and walk on. The number of walk-ons to the auto vessels tend to be low, however,
because of the time savings in using the high-speed service. Prior to the commencement
of the high speed passenger-only service, walk-on passengers were all accommodated
on the auto carrying vessels with large numbers of passengers being carried on the two
largest of the auto vessels. The arrivals and departures of the passenger-only service are
scheduled to coincide with the operation of the smaller of the auto carrying vessels to
minimize the number of vehicles arriving and departing the terminal during a given
period. It is evident that if the high speed vessel were not running the walk-on
passengers would be accommodated by the auto vessels.
Manual counts of the total number of vehicles and the total number of passengers
arriving at the site were also conducted on a typical weekday and Saturday from 7:15
A.M. to 8:00 A.M. and 9:15 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. These times were chosen because it is
expected that the majority of the patrons of the high-speed ferry would be present within
approximately 45 minutes before the 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. departure times of the
high-speed ferry. The following table is a summary of the passengers/vehicle
occupancies for the four 45 minute periods prior to the departure of the high-speed ferry.
Time Totel # of Total # of Occupancy
Vehicles Passengers
7: 15-8:00 A.M. 60 130 2.17
Weekday 9:15-10:00 A.M.
94 201 2.14
e---
7:15-8:00 A.M. 37 80 2.16
Saturday
9:15-10:00 A.M. 62 148 2.39
Table 9
Vehicular Occupancy High Speed Vessel
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: F.Trip Information
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In order to present a worse case scenario, a vehicle occupancy of 2.1 passengers/vehicle
is assumed for the high-speed ferry.
. Peak Hours of Use
As noted previously, information was obtained from the Cross Sound Ferry Services,
Inc. concerning the number of cars and number of passengers arriving and departing at
Orient Point from Friday, August 8 through Monday, August 18, 1997. Also, the
amount of passengers on the high speed ferry was determined for the same time periods.
The average number of hourly vehicles departing Orient Point by the Cross Sound Ferry
can be seen in Figures 14 thru 19 for an average weekday, Saturday, and Sunday. It can
be seen that the peak departing traffic for an average weekday occurs between 11 :00
A.M. and 12:00 P.M. with an average of 108 vehicles departing. The Saturday peak
also occurs between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. when an average of 118 vehicles
depart. The Sunday peak occurs between 3:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. when an average of
117 vehicles depart.
The average number of vehicles arriving at Orient Point by the Cross Sound Ferry can
be seen in Figures 26 through 31 for an average weekday, Saturday, and Sunday. It can
be seen that the peak arriving traffic for an average weekday occurs between 6:00 P.M.
and 7:00 P.M. with an average of 106 vehicles arriving. The Saturday peak occurs
between 2:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. when an average of 115 vehicles arrive. The Sunday
peak occurs between 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. when an average of 105 vehicles arrive.
Similarly, the amount of passengers arriving and departing on the Sea Jet I high speed
vessel can also be seen in Figures 32 thru 37. The peak weekday departures for the high
speed ferry occurred at 10:00 A.M., when an average of333 passengers departed. The
peak Saturday departures also occurred at 10:00 A.M., when an average of 285
passengers departed on the high speed vessel. The Sunday peak also occurred at 10:00
A.M., when an average of264 passengers departed.
The peak weekday arrivals for the high speed vessel occur from 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
when an average of 319 passengers arrive. The peak Saturday arrivals also occur from
7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. when an average of261 passengers arrive on the high speed
ferry. The Sunday peak also occurs from 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. when an average of
269 passengers arrive.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: F.Trip Information
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It should be noted that in reviewing the passenger records for the high-speed vessel
during a weekday period for the August peak of travel activity, there was considerable
variation from day to day. Fridays were typically light with Mondays, Tuesdays,
Wednesdays and Thursdays being high with several days being in excess of 350
persons.
. Auto Vessel/High Speed Vessel
As can be seen by a review of the ridership data presented, the amount of vehicles and
passengers accommodated hour to hour throughout the day during the peak August use
of the Cross Sound Ferry Services is largely dependent on the size of the ship used. The
John H. is capable of carrying in excess of 120 autos and over 1,000 passengers, while
the Cape Hen10pen can carry up to 95 vehicles and 900 passengers. The remaining auto
ferries carry 50 or less vehicles. All of the 5 auto vessels carry passengers that walk-on
and are unassociated with the vehicles the vessel carries, but the percentage of walk-on
passengers appears relatively low because of the attractiveness of the high-speed vessels
in serving walk-on passenger needs at a much faster pace. If there were no high speed
vessel or if there were less service, the passengers would migrate to the vehicle vessel.
Prior to the introduction of the high-speed passenger-only service, all walk-on
passengers were accommodated on the auto ferries with the larger boats, the John H.
and Cape Henlopen, carrying the bulk of the walk-ons because of the availability of
passenger carrying capacity. Walk-on passengers prior to the Sea Jet I filled the cabins,
reducing the available seating for the automobile drivers and their passengers. Thus,
the introduction of Sea Jet I maintained the quality of service for passengers on the auto
vessels. Currently, walk-ons for the auto vessels still increase when the Sea Jet I is out
of service, during midday hours when Sea Jet is not running, or during the winter when
total passenger ridership will not economically support Sea Jet I operation.
It was recognized by the management of the Cross Sound Ferry Services that
logistically, carrying full auto capacity and very high walk-on capacity on the same ship
was difficult. Operationally, it was deemed better to spread the load out over different
time periods. In order to do this, the high-speed ferry (Sea Jet I) was introduced. The
departures for the Sea Jet were scheduled to coincide with the arrivals and departures
of the smaller auto vessels to minimize loading and parking operations. The
attractiveness of the service has potentially encouraged travelers to leave their vehicles
in Orient and avail themselves of mass transportation service of the Sea Jet and
associated bus and train transportation on the Connecticut side. This should be
considered a major benefit in that it deceases vehicle miles traveled in automobiles, a
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: F. Trip Information
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
major environmental accomplishment in this region where ozone levels are above
standard.
Furthermore, providing the high speed passenger service which improves logistical
operations for the service has the additional benefit of spreading out the traffic loads on
Route 25. From this standpoint, the high speed passenger service is beneficial to
transportation services in Southold Town.
. Sources of Existing Traffic, Cross Sound Ferry Services
The origins of passengers taking the Cross Sound Ferry from Orient Point to New
London are indicated concomintant with the purpose of the trip and the frequency of
ridership in Table 10, Ridership Information. Weekend travel is the purpose for 59%
of the services travelers with 35% of the passengers utilizing the service 4 to 8 times per
year.
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: F.Trip Information
43
I
I Origin of Orient Point to New London Passengers
I I Origin I Percent I
East End of Long Island (Including Brookhaven) 35%
I West End of Long Island 41%
I Boston Area 7%
-.-
Rhode Island 5%
I Other 12%
TOTAL 100%
I
I Purpose of Trip
Purpose Percent
I Weekend Trip 59%
I Family Vacation 21%
Business Trip 20%
I TOTAL 100%
I Frequency of Ridership
I Number of Riders Percent
I More than once a year 28%
4 to 8 times a year 35%
I 1 to 2 times a year 25%
Less than once a year 12%
I TOTAL 100%
I Source: 1994 Survey
Table 10
Ridership Information
I Orient Point Auto/Passenger Service to New London
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Ridership Table 44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. Existing level of Service and Carrying Capacity on Route 25 East of the
Intersection of NYS Route 25 and Main Street (Greenportl to the Eastern End
of Route 25
. levels of Service Descriptions
Typically, three parameters are used to describe service quality on two lane highways.
These parameters are a) average travel speed, defined as the distance divided by the
average travel time of all vehicles, b) percent time delay, defined as the average
percent of time that all vehicles are delayed while traveling in platoons due to the
inability to pass, and c) capacity utilization, defined as the ratio of demand flow rate
to the capacity of the facility. These Levels of Service (LOS), designated "A" through
"F" in descending quality of service, are defined as follows:
Level of Service A
LOS A would result in average speeds approaching 60 mph on two-lane highways. The
passing frequency required to maintain these speeds has not reached a demanding level.
Passing demand is well below passing capacity, and almost no platoons of three or more
vehicles are observed. Drivers would be delayed no more than 30 percent of the time
by slow-moving vehicles.
Level of Service B
LOS B is characterized by speeds of 55 mph or slightly higher. Passing demand needed
to maintain desired speeds becomes significant and approximately equals the passing
capacity. Drivers are delayed up to 45 percent of the time on the average. Above this
flow rate, the number of platoons forming in the traffic stream begins to increase
dramatically.
Level of Service C
Further increases in flow characterize LOS C, resulting in noticeable increases in
platoon formation, platoon size and passing difficulties. Average speed still exceeds 52
mph, even though unrestricted passing demand exceeds passing capacity. While traffic
flow is stable, it is becoming susceptible to congestion due to turning traffic and slow-
moving vehicles. Percent time delays are up to 60 percent.
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Results.wpd
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Level of Service D
Unstable traffic flow is approached as traffic flows enter LOS D. The two opposing
traffic streams essentially begin to operate separately at higher volume levels, as passing
becomes extremely difficult. Passing demand is very high, while passing capacity
approaches zero. Platoon sizes of 5 to 10 vehicles are common, although speeds of 50
mph can still be maintained. The percentage of time motorists are delayed approaches
75 percent. This is the highest flow rate that can be maintained for any length of time
over an extended section without a high probability of breakdown.
Level of Service E
LOS E is defined as traffic flow conditions on two-lane highways having a percent time
delay of greater than 75 percent. Under ideal conditions, speeds will drop below 50
mph. Average travel speeds on highways with less than ideal conditions will be slower,
as low as 25 mph in some cases. Passing is virtually impossible under LOS E
conditions, and platooning becomes intense when slower vehicles or other interruptions
are encountered.
Level of Service F
As with other highway types, LOS F represents heavily congested flow with traffic
demand exceeding capacity. Volumes are lower than capacity, and speeds are below
capacity speed.
. Existing levels of Service
This section outlines the results of a capacity analysis for two portions of roadway
within the New York State Route 25 study area. Specifically, through the use of
Highway Capacity Software, the existing levels of service and the carrying capacity of
a 4.9 mile section of Route 25 from Main Street (Greenport) to Edwards Lane and a 2.9
mile section from Edward's Lane to the eastern terminus of Route 25 were found. The
analysis was completed for three one-hour time periods within a typical weekday,
Saturday and Sunday.
Table 1 I presents a summary of the capacity analysis. The level of service listed in the
table pertains to peak period (15 minutes) operations within each one-hour time frame.
In general, the section of Route 25 from Main Street to Edwards Lane exhibited a lower
level of service than the section from Edwards Lane to the eastern terminus of Route 25,
reflecting the significant change in traffic volume between the two sections.
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Results.wpd
46
-------------------
Two-Way Capacity Existing Volume i Existing Level of
Road Time of Week Tlme-of-Oay (vehicles per hour) Service
(vehicles per hour) (Peak August) (Peak August)
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2239 607 C
----~---"
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2280 776 D
--
9:00-10:00 P.M. 2225 302 B
-----.
NYS Route 25 from 11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2225 1163 E
Suffolk County Road 48 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2184 1018 E
to East Marion Orient Saturday
Park 9:00-10:00 P.M. 2252 444 C
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2184 1220 E
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2110 1127 E
9:00-10:00 P.M. 2145 467 C
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2145 388 C
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2252 436 C
9:00-10:00 P.M. 2211 189 B
NYS Route 25 from 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon 2145 721 D
East Marion Orient 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2197 562 C
Park to Narrow River Saturday ------- ..
Road 9:00-10:00 P.M. 2266 208 B
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2110 736 D
----- --..
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2145 768 D
-
9:00-10:00 P.M. 2087 261 C
Table 11
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25
August Peak Period
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: tables.wpd
47
-------------------
Two-Way Capacity Existing Volume I Existing Level of
Road Time of Week Time-of-Day (vehicles per hour) , Service
(vehicles per hour) I
(Peak August) (Peak August)
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon 2170 336 C
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2280 301 C
9:00-10:00 P.M. 2053 134 B
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2211 444 C
NYS Route 25 from
Narrow River Road to Saturday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2170 407 C
its Eastern Terminus
9:00-10:00 P.M. 2145 164 B
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 2076 559 D
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 2110 640 0
9:00-10:00 P.M. 1986 219 C
Table 11 (Continued)
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25
August Peak Period
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Results.wpd
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conversely, the section east of Edwards Lane has lower two-way capacity levels than
the section west of Edwards Lane. The appendix contains detailed remarks, including
a list of input data, regarding each capacity analysis.
. Seasonal Variation
As noted previously in this report, the peak travel time of August has been chosen for
the purpose of this Study. August represents the peak of travel volume on Route 25 on
the North Fork, as well as the peak usage of the Cross Sound Ferry Services and peak
use of the adjacent Orient State Park.
While volumes on Route 25, the Cross Sound Ferry Services and the park are all
significantly lower in July than August, Cross Sound Ferry Services ridership drops to
approximately half the August ridership in September and June. This drop in ridership
continues through the Fall, Winter and Spring.
Figure 38, Monthly Passengers Carries, indicates the extreme seasonal variation in total
passenger ridership of the Cross Sound Ferry Services.
Disk 1390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Results.wpd
49
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_._~-~--- ---~-,--~._~~-----._- -..- -, - ..'._--. -' -- _u_.____.._._
Monthly Passenger Carries
Cross Sound Ferry Services
180,000 r----'------------'-- ----------.--- , ----- .----- - "'-- --.-.--.-- ---------------
170,000 ---"--------- -, --~-_._--~- --------,..-------- -- .'----- ---,- ,-- ,-----,--
160,000 - ------- - -----~--- ----- - ------- -- ,- - -- - - - - --- - ---- ------
150,000 - II
1-40,000 ..------ ,,-
130,000 .----
120,000 -------
110,000 - ---..-----.. - -- -- ---
!! 100,000 - ..
I II
90,000 - --
90,000 -- ----
II II
10,000 ------- II
60,000 -- ,----. s- -'--.--- ,- -.--------
50,000 ---- --------~--_._- --- --- ------ ------ _____u.__ __u_ ------------ - --"1
- ,--
<<>,000 -- - ----.. ------.--- ----
II II
30,000 ..-------,------- -- .-.- --..--------------..--. ---~--------_._._---------- - -----.---.-. .-..-.-.
-----.-- ~
20,000 -- ,- -, -
10,000 ------ -~-_._- .'--.-
0 L___, _m._____ - --- -- ----- ----- -- -----
~ .. i ~ i w S ~ ~ g ~ 0
~ ~ ~ .. ~
w
'"
Month
---_.._.,._~_... --_._.,.~_._-------- ---- _M._._"'__
FIGURE 38
-
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. Methods of Handling Traffic Flow During Unloading Process
Observations show that when the auto carrying vessel arrives and the ship docks, the vehicles
leave the boat as soon as they can. This is an orderly process. The passengers, both from
the auto carrying vessels and the high-speed passenger-only vessels, cause more random
departures. The passengers unload and then proceed to their cars. Because of the walking
time and start-up time, the traffic leaving the parking area is random.
All traffic exit either the boat or the parking lot and enter Route 25 westbound proceeding
to their destinations. Due to the relatively low volumes and the random passenger
departures, vehicles entering Route 25 do so in a timely and orderly manner.
Disk #39D-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Methods.wpd
51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Description of Pedestrian/Cycling
Activity Safety from the
Intersection of NYS Route 25
and Main Street (Greenport) to
the Eastern End of Route 25
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry 52
File: Traffic:\Cover
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Non-Motorist Activity
Non-motorist counts were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation
for all four Saturdays in the month of August 1997. Manual counts of pedestrians, bicyclists,
and skateboarders traveling in both the eastbound and westbound directions on Route 25
between Rocky Point Road and Old Orchard Road from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. were
recorded. A summary of the non-motorized counts, Non-Motorized Count Summary, is
presented in the Appendix.
During the month of August 1997, the Saturday eastbound average counts for the 6 hour
period were: 58 pedestrians (40%), 74 bicyclists (52%), and 11 skateboarders (8%). For the
westbound direction on Saturday, the counts averaged: 70 pedestrians (46%),71 bicyclists
(46%), and 12 skateboarders (8%).
The pavement condition of Route 25 is excellent. In 1994, the road was repaved and
widened. Route 25 provides one lane in each direction, each having a width of 10 feet.
Route 25 also provides wide shoulders, each having a width of 7 feet. Both shoulders are
in excellent condition. The wide edge line which separate the shoulders from traffic are in
good condition.
In order to develop a quantitative approach to rating Route 25 as a bicycle route, available
publications and reports were researched. In checking the bicycle suitability on Route 25
with the available criteria, characteristics considered to be primary factors were taken into
account. The characteristics (listed in order of significance) are:
. Shoulder width;
. Annual daily traffic (ADT) volume per lane;
. Speed limit; and,
. Shoulder pavement conditions
Factor scores for each of the individual characteristics were obtained using various studies
and reports. Suitability criteria in these sources are oriented toward intermediate or
experienced bicyclists who are familiar with the rules of the road and effective cycling. Each
suitability factor has three (or five) possible value ranges with factor scores ranging from +2
to -2. The middle range for each suitability factor corresponds to minimum desirable
bicycling conditions. The low suitability factor range corresponds to desirable bicycling
conditions, whereas the high suitability factor range corresponds to less than desirable
bicycling conditions. The suitability factor ranges were selected based upon available
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Pedestrian Environment-2
53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
information from several other studies and reports. According to the available publications
and reports researched, it is recommended that:
· a factor score of2 be used if the shoulders are greater than 6 feet wide,
· a factor score of -I be used if the traffic volumes, ADT per lane, are in the 5,000 to
9,999 range,
· a factor score of 1 be used if the posted speed limit falls in the 40 to 49 mph range,
and
· a factor score of2 be used if the shoulder/travellane pavement surface quality is new
or in very good condition.
A single numerical suitability score (bicycle suitability score) was obtained by summing the
score for each factor. Each suitability factor was weighted equally for simplicity. The
bicycle suitability score value was then interpreted using available information from several
other studies and reports.
According to various sources, the resulting bicycle suitability score can fall in either of four
ranges, each range having its own interpretation. A bicycle suitability score between 6 and
8 indicates that the physical characteristics of the roadway make it more than desirable for
intermediate to experienced bicyclists, and not for beginning bicyclists. A bicycle suitability
score between -I and 5 indicates that the physical characteristics of the roadway make it
desirable for intermediate to experienced bicyclists, and not for beginner bicyclists. A
bicycle suitability score between -2 and -5 indicates that the physical characteristics of the
roadway make it undesirable for intermediate to experienced bicyclists. Lastly, a bicycle
suitability score between -6 and -8 indicates that the physical characteristics of the roadway
make it more than undesirable for intermediate to experienced bicyclists.
On Route 25, the shoulders are 8 feet wide (factor score = 2), traffic volumes, ADT per lane
are in the 5,000 to 9,999 range (factor score = -I), the posted speed limit falls in the 40 to 49
mph range (factor score = 1), and the shoulder/travellane pavement surface quality is new
or very good condition (factor score = 2). Summarizing the score for each factor resulted in
a bicycle suitability score of 4. This value indicates that the physical characteristics of the
roadway make it desirable for intermediate to experienced bicyclists, and not for beginner
bicyclists.
It is further interesting to note that in August 1996 the Cross Sound Ferry Service
accommodated 442 trips by bicyclists and could be a reason why the Route 25 bicycle route
is so popular.
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Pedestrian Environment-2
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III. TRANSPORTATION:
Anticipated Impact
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A. Anticipated Future Traffic Growth
As noted in prior sections of this report, Route 25 has been divided into three segments
within the study area based on NYSDOT control sections for traffic data collection and
analysis of accident data. The three sections are:
. Route 25, Main Street/c.R. 48 to East Marion Orient Park
. Route 25, East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road
. Route 25, Narrow River Road to the Ferry terminal
Traffic growth along these highway segments in the future will be due to a number of factors,
including:
. Development of currently vacant land along that portion of Route 25
. Population growth in areas surrounding Southold
. Increases in tourism
. Increased use of Orient Beach State Park
The development of vacant parcels between Main Street in Greenport and Orient will provide
the most direct increase in traffic on Route 25 as this roadway must be used to access
commercial shopping and employment centers. How much traffic will grow on Route 25
due to the development of currently vacant lots is directly related to the number of residential
units actually constructed in the area. This cannot be ascertained at this time, although it is
useful to note that the Town of South old issued an average of94 residential permits a year
from 1990 to 1995 on a town-wide basis. It is further interesting to note a single family
house generates approximately 9.6 vehicle trips per day per the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' Trip Generation handbook, 5th Edition, so that on the order of 10,000 new vehicle
trips are added to the Town of South old's highway system each year.
Based on data contained in the Long Island Lighting Company's 1996 Long Island
Population Survey, population growth between April 1 , 1990 and January 1, 1996 was 2.7%
for the entire Town of South old and 2% for the hamlets of Orient and East Marian combined.
During the same period, the Town of Brookhaven experienced 3.3% growth, the Town of
Riverhead experienced 3.5% growth, the Town of Southampton experienced 1.8% growth,
and the Town of East Hampton experienced 2.3% growth.
Traffic due to general tourism is more difficult to identify, significant efforts have been made
throughout Long Island to increase tourism. Increases in traffic generated by increased
attendance at the Orient Beach State Park are more identifiable; in the past year, activity at
this Park increased 4.6% and accommodated 121,054 visitors between January 1, 1997 and
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Anticipated Traffic
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
August 31, 1997. Activity at all State Parks on Long Island increased by only 3.7% within
the past year indicating that Orient State Park is increasing in popularity. It is further
interesting to note that a new 30' by 60' pavilion will be added for the 1998 season. It will
be used for special events such as fund raisers, reunions, weddings and/or company picnics.
Such events could easily generate 100 arrivals and departures in relatively tight time frames.
Long Island continues to promote itself as a vacation destination and in recent years the Long
Island Convention and Visitors Bureau (LICVB) has received additional funding, through
a hotel occupancy tax imposed on hotel rooms in Suffolk and Nassau counties, specifically
appropriated to advertise Long Island. A good portion of this advertising has been placed
in New England cities such as Boston, Springfield, Massachusetts, Hartford, and Providence.
Those travelers wishing to visit Long Island from these locations are encouraged to take the
ferry and are sent a ferry schedule with their vacation guides. Cross Sound has joined in
cooperative advertising and promotion ventures with various Long Island attractions such
as Palmer Vineyards and Splish Splash Water Theme park in Riverhead to encourage visitors
from Connecticut to take the ferry and visit these entities. Cross Sound has also become
involved in group marketing and has set up through numerous New England tour companies,
series of motorcoach bus tours utilizing the ferry to visit attractions all throughout Long
Island. Cross Sound has set up partnerships for group tours with attractions such as North
Fork wineries, Sag Harbor, East Hampton, Montauk, Old Westbury Gardens, the Suffolk
County Vanderbilt Museum, and Old Bethpage Village Restoration. Most of these groups
will both depart and return via Cross Sound, but some continue to drive across Long Island
and return via the bridges over Long Island Sound.
During the time period, 1990 to 1996, the Cross Sound Ferry Services has seen an increase
in total passengers by an average of7.1 % each year while total autos carried increased by 4%
per year. Total trucks carried increased by 1.8% per year. The Foxwoods Casino, which
opened in 1992, may have contributed to the increase in passenger traffic over vehicular
traffic (i.e., 7.1 % total passengers versus 4% for autos). The total passengers carried in 1993
increased by 6.9% and the autos increased by 6.2% when the Casino first opened and bus
transportation was not regularly available on the Connecticut side. In 1994, with bus service
available in Connecticut, total passengers carried increased by 10.2% while vehicles carried
increased by 4.6%. In 1995, the Sea Jet I Service was started but was only operable partially
through the season and passenger ridership increased by 12.9%, while autos carried increased
by 3.7%. In 1996, with Sea Jet I Service available throughout the season, passenger
ridership fell by 2.8% and autos carried fell by 2.9%, a comparable figure. Data through the
first seven months of 1997 indicate that ridership rates have rebounded and that passenger
carries are up by 11.6% versus 1996 but only 5% per year versus 1995. A graph of total
annual auto, truck and passenger carries on the Cross Sound Ferry is provided in Figure 39.
Disk #390. Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Anticipated Traffic
57
-------------------
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000 --
ill 800,000
'E
G
o
j ~,OOO
~
I- 400,000
300,000
200,000 ---
100,000
o .--."
~
Total Annual Auto, Truck, and Passenger Carries: 1990 to 1996
Cross Sound Ferry Services
"6- . _..-_--~~---l
------;;r---
./
.Ai
------
6~
---
~
I!I
I!I
n______ __I!----____ --!'
I!I
I!I
I!I
.
1990
I
_L~~_J
lL. .
'99'
.
1992
~:_-~.
'993
Year
.
'994
-.-
'995
'996
FIGURE 39
I
II Autos
. Trucks
-I!I.- Passengers
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As indicated in Figure 39, ridership has decreased since 1995. It is assumed that the peak
in passengers in 1995 is attributed to several unusual events in 1995 that increased ridership
artificially, such as the 1995 U.S. Open Golf Championship. It should be further noted that
the ridership figures for August 1995 did not show a decrease in passenger ridership as was
the case for the entire year, but rather reflected an increase of 5.1 % over 1995.
For the purpose of this study, August has been selected for the analysis period because
August reflects the highest use of the Cross Sound Ferry Services, as well as traditionally the
highest vehicle use for the East End of Long Island. The use ofthe August period will then
represent a worst case scenario for transportation issues.
The use of Cross Sound Ferry Service tends to be growing at a steady pace over the past six
years and at a pace faster than the population in the surrounding towns. In 1993, 1994 and
1995 there were significant increases in ridership. The pace of growth now appears to have
settled into a 5% growth in passenger ridership and a 4% growth in vehicle transportation.
The faster pace of growth in Cross Sound Ferry Service usage as compared to population
growth is explained by a variety of causes. First, traditionally on Long Island, vehicle
registrations and the issuance of licenses has grown at a faster pace than population.
Secondly, the Cross Sound Ferry Service is an important link in Long Island's transportation
system. It is a link by which the population of the five eastern towns of Long Island,
Brookhaven and much of Suffolk County can access New England without traversing the
heavily congested Nassau County and New York City area. The Service thus provides a
route which avoids the continuing and increasing congestion in the Nassau County/New
York City area for a wide area with a steadily growing population. Additionally, economic
conditions have improved across Long Island. Cross Sound Ferry Services traffic is
dependent upon: economy, weather, traveler preferences, which in itself are occasioned by
destinations and their popularity, the relative efficiency and costs of alternative access,sincluding airplane, congestion in Queens (Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges), and road
construction in western Long Island and southern Connecticut, and whether there is new
water carrier service developed between Connecticut and Montauk.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Anticipated Traffic
59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. NYSDOT Traffic Growth Factors
The New York State Department of Transportation was contacted to determine what growth
factors the Department of Transportation used for the Study area. Mr. William Thomwell
of the NYSDOT Regional Planning and Program Management stated that the NYSDOT
utilized a 3% per year growth factor for ail projects located in the five eastern towns of Long
Island.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Anticipated Traffic
60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. Estimation of Traffic Volume following Construction of the Proposed Action
This section presents the results of an estimation of the anticipated traffic growth associated
with the construction of the proposed action. This analysis was completed for the following
three time periods within a typical weekday, Saturday, and Sunday: 11-12 Noon, 5-6 P.M.
and 9-10 P.M., when the construction of the proposed parking lot could have the most impact
on traffic within the Study area. Parking is currently available to serve existing peak use for
the 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. high speed vessels and it would be the twelve noon vessel
where parking on peak days occasionally becomes a problem. The Cross Sound Ferry
Services will balance growth in ridership between the first passenger vessel out (8:00 A.M.),
the third passenger vessel out (12:00 Noon) with the second passenger vessel (10:00 A.M.)
currently running at capacity with no room for growth. The balancing will be done through
reservations, advertising and pricing. Half of the departure growth will occur for the 8:00
A.M. high speed passenger service but it will be unaffected by the project as parking is
always available. Half of the growth will occur for the 12:00 Noon departure when the
proposed new parking facilities will allow for increases in traffic. The A.M. study period
captures the traffic growth resulting from a Sea-Jet I departure at 12:00 Noon, and the two
P.M. study periods account for the traffic growth associated with the Sea-Jet I arrivals on the
5:40 return and 9:40 return each carrying half of the total growth. Given NYS Route 25
traffic volume counts immediately west of the existing terminal parking lot, records of auto
vessel arrivals and departures, and records of Sea-Jet I passenger arrivals and departures, a
forecast of future five-year and ten-year Route 25 traffic volumes was completed through the
application of appropriate growth factors. Route 25 traffic not associated with the Cross
Sound Ferry Services was increased three percent per year. The number of vehicles utilizing
the car services grew at a rate of four percent per year. Passengers riding on Sea-Jet I were
increased five percent per year, and an average of 2.1 Sea-Jet I passengers occupied one
parked vehicle at the Orient termina1. Table 12 lists the estimated traffic volumes on Route
25 after five and ten years. The levels of eastbound Route 25 traffic for the 11-12 Noon
study period relates to a 12 Noon Sea-Jet I departure, and the volume of westbound Route
25 traffic for the two evening study periods is associated with Sea-Jet I arrivals of5:40 P.M.
and 9:40 P.M.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Estimation.wpd
61
-------------------
,
Auto Ferry i Estimated
Background I High Speed
Time of Traffic Vehicles
Road Week Time-of-Day Traffic (Both Arriving Ferry Traffic Parked at
(Two Way) and Departing) (One-Way Only) Additional Site
Existing 468 85 54 -
Weekday 2002 Conditions 543 101 93 39
2007 Conditions 629 126 129 75
--
NYS Route 25 from Existing 966 83 114 -
Suffolk County Road Saturday 2002 Conditions 1120 101 163 49
48 to East Marion
Orient Park 2007 Conditions 1298 123 170 56
Existing 1036 91 93 -
Sunday 2002 Conditions 1201 110 137 44
2007 Conditions 1392 135 162 69
Existing 249 85 54 -
Weekday 2002 Conditions 289 101 93 39
2007 Conditions 335 126 129 75
NYS Route 25 from Existing 524 83 114 -
East Marion Orient --
Park to Narrow River Saturday 2002 Conditions 607 101 163 49
-- ---------- ----- - ---------- ___m___ ------- ---- --
Road 2007 Conditions 704 123 170 56
Existing 552 91 93 -
- -~--
Sunday 2002 Conditions 640 110 137 44
-----.-.- --
2007 Conditions 742 135 162 69
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: T-EB-WB.wpd
Table 12
Traffic Volume Comparisons, 11 :00 A.M. - 12:00 Noon
Eastbound and Westbound
62
-------------------
Background Auto Ferry i High Speed I Estimated
Time of Traffic i Vehicles
Road Week Time-of-Day Traffic (Both Arriving Ferry Traffic Parked at
(Two Way) and Departing) (One-Way Only) Additional Site
Existing 197 85 54 -
.--.__..0._.-
Weekday 2002 Conditions 228 101 93 39
2007 Conditions 265 126 129 75
Existing 247 83 114 -
NYS Route 25 from
Narrow River Road to its Saturday 2002 Conditions 286 101 163 49
Eastern Terminus
2007 Conditions 332 123 170 56
Existing 375 91 93 -
Sunday 2002 Conditions 455 110 137 44
2007 Conditions 504 135 162 69
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: T-EB-WB.wpd
Table 12 (Continued)
Traffic Volume Comparisons. 11 :00 A.M. - 12:00 Noon
Eastbound and Westbound
63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. Quantification of Project Site Generated Impacts Based upon the Level of
Service Calculations
In order to examine the impact of the additional traffic on Route 25 in the area, two lane
highway capacity analyses were performed for the following sections of roadway:
. Route 25 from Suffolk County Road 48 to East Marion Orient Park
. Route 25 from East Marion Orient Park to Narrow River Road
. Route 25 from Narrow River Road to end of Route 25
First, capacity analyses were performed to examine the future levels of service without the
additional traffic that could use the Cross Sound Ferry Service with the provision of
additional parking (2002 No-Build Conditions). These volumes included a 3.0% per year
normal traffic growth rate for the background traffic. The existing background traffic was
determined by subtracting the amount of vehicles that use the Cross Sound Ferry Services
(auto and passenger-only) from the existing traffic counts. The remainder is the traffic on
Route 25 that does not use either passenger or auto carrying service.
The 2002 No-Build Conditions also included an increase in the auto water borne traffic of
4.0% per year. The 3.0% increase in background traffic, together with the 4.0% increase in
auto water borne traffic and the existing auto trips generated by the passenger-only vessel
combined to result in the 2002 No-Build Conditions. It should be noted that in the No-Build
Condition, the auto vessel usage may increase disproportionally higher if parking is
unavailable. In other words, if patrons arriving at the terminal find no parking available, they
may elect to take an auto carrying vessel and drive in their autos to the final destination.
Other patrons may find less convenient off-site parking that will allow them to complete their
trip via the Sea Jet I as planned. No allowance has bee made for either occurrence in the
"No-Build" Analysis.
The capacity analyses were performed for the weekday, Saturday, and Sunday peak hours
of 11:00 A.M.-12:00 Noon, 5:00 P.M.-6:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M.-I0:00 P.M. All capacity
analyses were performed using the "Highway Capacity Manual", "Transportation Research
Board Special Report 209,1994".
All of the capacity analyses were conducted with the peak hour factors generated by the A TR
counts for the analysis hours at the three locations. The peak hour factors utilized varied
from 0.5 to 0.95, depending on the hour of analysis, location and time of day. Lower peak
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Draft.wpd
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
hour factors were found later in the day and in the far eastern analysis section while the
higher peak hour factors were found in the middle of the day in the western analysis section.
Through the use of the peak hour factors, the capacity analysis looks at the highest fifteen
minute period within the analysis hour and actually looks at the impact of the unloading of
the Cross Sound Ferries Service's Vessels over a shorter period of time.
Level of Service is a measure of the quality of flow of traffic. The concept of Levels of
Service uses qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions within a traffic
stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. The descriptions of individual
levels of service characterize these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel
time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Levels of
service represent a range of conditions and thus a lowering of a Level of service may only
be a crossing of a threshold between the levels and may only be the addition of very few
vehicles.
A summary of the capacity analyses and existing and No-Build levels of service for the peak
travel period in August are contained in Tables 13 and 14. Where a level of service change
results from the Existing to the "No Build" condition, the change is highlighted in the table.
Likewise, where there is a change from the "No Build" to "Build" the change is also
highlighted.
Table 13, Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25-2002 Conditions presents the results
of the No-Build capacity analysis for the year 2002 in comparison to the existing capacity
analysis presented in Table 11. A description of Level of Service terminology is presented
on pages 45 and 46. As can be seen by examining Table 13, the normal background growth
in traffic over a five year period results in decreases in levels of service for three of nine time
periods in the western analysis segment of Route 25, two of nine time periods in the central
segment and one of nine in the eastern segment. It must be recognized that only three time
periods ofl6 time periods between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. on a weekday, Saturday and
Sunday were examined and that the same decreases in levels of service could be expected
to occur at many of the other hours of the day not analyzed, as non project related growth
will continue throughout all hours of the day.
Table 14, Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25-2007 Conditions presents the results
of the No-Build capacity analysis for the year 2007 versus the existing capacity analysis
results. As can be seen from a review of this Table, the normal background growth of traffic
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Draft.wpd
65
-------------------
Existing Projected No- Projected No- I Projected Build I P j t d B 'Id
Time of Build Volume Build V I ' ro ec e UI
oume
Road Time-of-Day Level of . Level of
Week (vehicles per Level of (vehIcles per S I
Service hour) Service hour) erv ce
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon C 703 780 0
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 0 889 892 0
NYS Route 25 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 345 431 C
from 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon E 1,340 E 1,437 E
Suffolk County
Road 48 to East Saturday 5:00-6:00 P.M. E 1,172 E 1,174 E
Marlon Orient
Park 9:00-10:00 P.M. C 507 C 586 C
(Western) 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon E 1,407 E 1,494 E
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. E 1,293 E 1,301 E
9:00-10:00 P.M. C 541 624 0
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon C 449 C 526 C
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 494 C 498 C
NYS Route 25 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 214 B 300
from East 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon 0 827 0 924
Marion Orient
Park to Narrow Saturday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 643 645
River Road
(Center) 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 242 321
11:00 A.M.-12 Noon 0 847 934 0
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. D 876 884 E
9:00-10:00 P.M. C 303 386 C
Note: Shaded area indicates change in level of service.
Table 13
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25 - 2002 Conditions
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry 66
File: T -2002.wpd
-------------------
Existing Projected No- Projected No- Projected Build . Projected Build
Time of Build Volume Build Volume
Road Week Time-of-Day Level of (vehicles per Level of (vehicles per Level of
Service hour) Service hour) Service
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon C 389 C 466 C
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 465 C 468 C
NYS Route 25 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 152 B 238
from 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon C 506 C 603
Suffolk County
Road 48 to East Saturday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 464 C 466 C
Marion Orient
Park 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 200 279 C
(Eastern)
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noon 0 641 0 728 0
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. 0 728 0 736 0
9:00-10:00 P.M. C 266 C 349 C
~ Shaded area indicates change in level of service.
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: T-2002.wpd
Table 13 (Continued)
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25 - 2002 Conditions
67
-------------------
Existing Projected No- Projected No- , Projected Build I Projected
Time of Build Volume Build Volume Build
Road Week Time-of-Day Level of (vehicles per Level of (vehicles per Level of
Service hour) Service hour) Service
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo C 818 967 D
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. D 1,022 1,053 E
NYS Route 25 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 394 524 C
from 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo E 1,546 E 1,658 E
Suffolk County
Road 48 to East Saturday 5:00-6:00 P.M. E 1,351 E 1,355 E
Marion Orient
Park 9:00-10:00 P.M. C 582 C 698
(Western) 11:00 A.M.-12 Noo E 1,628 E 1,766 E
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. E 1,487 E 1,505 E
9:00-10:00 P.M. C 627 756 D
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo C 524 673 D
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 566 597
9:00-10:00 P.M. B 242 372
NYS Route 25
from East Marion 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo D 953 1,065
Orient Park to 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 738 742
Narrow River Saturday
Road 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 273 389
(Center)
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo D 977 1,115
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. D 1,005 1,023 E
9:00-10:00 P.M. C 351 480 C
.N2.tl!.; Shaded area indicates change in level of service,
Table 14
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25 - 2007 Conditions
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry 68
File: T-2007.wpd
-------------------
Existing Projected No- Projected No- Projected Build Projected
Time of Build Volume Build Volume Build
Road Week Tlme-of-Day Level of (vehicles per Level of (vehicles per Level of
Service hour) Service hour) Service
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo C 454 C 603
Weekday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 421 C 452 C
NYS Route 25 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 171 301 C
from
Suffolk County 11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo C 5BO 692 D
Road 48 to East
Marion Orient Saturday 5:00-6:00 P.M. C 530 534
Park
(Eastern) 9:00-10:00 P.M. B 225 341
11 :00 A.M.-12 Noo D 739 D 877
Sunday 5:00-6:00 P.M. D 832 D 850
9:00-10:00 P.M. C 308 C 437
Note: Shaded area indicates change in level of service.
Disk N3g0-Cross Sound Ferry
File: T-2007.wpd
Table 14 (Continued)
Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25 - 2007 Conditions
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
over a ten year period results in decreases in levels of service in four out of nine analysis
periods in the western study segment, decreases in five out of nine in the central study
segment and decreases in five out of nine in the eastern study segment. Again, the No-Build
analysis looked at only a few time periods of the day and the steady growth of background
traffic throughout all hours of the day can be expected to lead to numerous other decreases
in levels of service.
The capacity analyses were then rerun to examine future levels of service with the additional
traffic (2002 Build Conditions). These volumes included the growth rates in the 2002 No-
Build Conditions as well as the additional traffic that could use the passenger-only service
with the provision of additional parking. Further, it was assumed that the 8:00 A.M.
passenger-only service, which continuously runs under capacity will accommodate half of
the growth but that plenty of parking is always available so this increase will not be related
to the proposed project. The 10:00 A.M. high speed ferry runs near capacity and there is
little room for an increase. In addition, sufficient parking is generally available to meet the
needs of the 10:00 A.M. high-speed ferry. Thus, it is the 12:00 Noon, or last morning ferry,
which will likely carry any increase related to the proposed additional parking. Further, in
order to present a worse case scenario, it was assumed that the additional passengers
departing the 8:00 A.M. or 12:00 Noon ferry would return on the 5:40 and 9:40 return trips.
Both of these time periods were analyzed.
Table 13, Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25-2002 Conditions presents the results
of the "2002 Build" capacity analysis in contrast to the "2002 No Build" analyses and the
1997 existing analyses. A review of the capacity analysis table indicates that in the year
2002 levels of service in the western analysis section of the study area will not change. In
the two eastern sections of the roadway, which generally exhibit low traffic volumes, and the
Cross Sound Ferry Services traffic represents a higher portion of total traffic, there were
several level of service changes. During the 9:00 to 10:00 P.M. time period for weekdays
and Saturday in the center analysis section, levels of service went from B to C. Level of
service C is still considered a good level of service.
In the eastern analysis section, the weekday 9:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. analysis section went
from level of service B to C, while 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon went from C to D.
As seen in Table 14, Capacity Analysis Results for NYS Route 25-2007 Conditions, in the
year 2007 in the western analysis section, the level of service for one time period, 9:00 P.M.
to 10:00 P.M. Saturday, lowers from C to D. In the central section, the levels of service for
one time period, weekday 5:00 to 6:00 P.M., lowered from C to D. In addition, two time
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Draft.wpd
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
periods, Saturday and Sunday 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon lower from D to E. In the eastern
section, three time periods, weekday 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon, Saturday 5:00 to 6:00 P.M.
and Sunday 9:00 to 10:00 P.M., all go from levels of service C to D. Additionally, the time
period Sunday 5:00 to 6:00 P.M lowers from level of service D to E.
These changes in level of service must be understood within the context of the 10 year
analysis period and the changes in levels of service that will occur without the project action
due to the normal growth of traffic as previously demonstrated in the "No Build" analyses.
When comparing the existing condition versus the no-build conditions for the western
analysis section, the level of service for one time period goes from D to E, the level of
service for two time periods goes from C to D and the level of service for one time period
goes from B to C. In the central analysis section, one time period goes from D to E, two go
from C to D and two go from B to C. In the eastern analysis section, two time periods go
from B to C, and one goes from C to D.
Thus, the magnitude of change related to the development of the additional parking spaces
to allow for the normal growth in the walk-on passenger-only service is similar if not less
than the changes attributable to the normal growth of traffic. The change attributable to the
project in the western analysis segment are negligible because the traffic already on the
highway serving the adjacent community is already high. In the central and eastern analysis
segments where community traffic is lighter, the increase in traffic that could be attributable
to the project are somewhat more recognizable, although it results in no poorer levels of
service than are currently encountered in the western segment of the study area.
It must be further reiterated that the analysis by taking the anticipated growth and assuming
it occurs primarily in three individual analyses hours, and utilizing low peak hour factors,
has looked at the worst case impacts. Further, these impacts will only occur during two
months of the year and only on limited days during that period when peak travel occurs. The
impacts of the normal growth of traffic are not, however; confined to a three hour period of
the day; but they occur all hours of the day, 12 months of the year. As demonstrated above,
even in the analysis hours when the increased parking may allow growth in the passenger-
only service, the impacts of the normal growth of traffic are greater than those related to the
addition of 155 parking spaces.
Disk. #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Draft.wpd
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E. Assessment of the Potential of Uninterrupted Traffic Flow along Route 25
Resulting from Vehicles Unloading at the Orient Terminal
It is recognized that the existing auto transport service does create a stream of traffic exiting
the vessel as it docks. However, the unloading of vehicles only lasts from 5 to 15 minutes
depending on how full the vessel is and the size of the vessel. Momentary delays in the
unloading period cause gaps in this stream of traffic as does driver behavior as slower drivers
allow gaps to develop between themselves and faster drivers. The unloading only occurs
once every hour and more often than not lasts 5 minutes or less. The other portion of the
hour, no traffic is generated by vehicles departing the auto-ferry.
The high speed passenger vessel is another situation. The passengers have to walk off the
ship, carrying their belongings, find their vehicle in the parking lot, and pack the car, thus
stretching out the departures from the parking lot and creating more random gaps. This
random departure pattern provides for gaps in the traffic stream along Route 25.
It should be pointed out that traffic caused by both auto and high speed ferry service does not
produce uninterrupted traffic flow for long periods of time along Route 25. The further away
from the terminal along Route 25, the more gaps will be introduced into the traffic stream
not only due to activity at the terminal but also due to friction along the roadway. Residents
along Route 25 will be able to pull out of driveways and side streets without being
significantly affected.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: F-Assessment
72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F. Assessment of Existing and Proposed Site Improvements
At present, the Cross Sound Ferry Services Terminal parking lot on the Snack Bar Parcel is
unpaved and not in very good condition. The proposed site improvement would regrade the
parking lot and provide a stone surface in addition to expanding the facility onto the Trust
Parcel. In addition, it is recommended that curb stops as were used in the "West Parcel" be
used to create efficient parking aisles throughout the lot. By creating these aisles with curb
stops or other means, drivers would be clear as to where the parking spaces are and where
two-way traffic is allowed. The improved lot would efficiently facilitate more parking
spaces than the existing parking area.
In addition, observations show that the passengers from the high-speed passenger-only vessel
walk to the parking lot in a random fashion. No guidance is given to the passengers via
crosswalks or signing. Since the high speed vessel arrives at different times than the auto-
vessel, this does not cause a problem in the existing conditioos. Problems do occur when the
auto-vessel arrives at Orient Point and walk-on passengers are on-board. These passengers
mix with the traffic departing the ship and create a vehicular/pedestrian conflict. If these
pedestrians were separated from the vehicle stream, the problem could be avoided.
At present, there are no existing crosswalks. It was observed that pedestrian activity is quite
random. Pedestrians walk along Route 25 among the traffic to get from the parking lot to
the ferry and vice versa.
It is recommended that signing be provided to guide pedestrians to the parking area. In
addition to the signing, walkways with sanctions should be provided that will guide
pedestrians to the parking area and separate them from the vehicle flow. This will also help
to expedite the unloading of the vehicles from the auto-vessel by providing a clear travel path
for the exiting vehicles.
To improve pedestrian safety, two crosswalks should also be provided at the site. One
crosswalk should run in the east-west direction connecting the Terminal parcel and the Snack
Bar Parcel. The other crosswalk should run in the north-south direction within the Snack Bar
parcel parking lot. The purpose of providing the crosswalks is to concentrate the majority
of pedestrians in these two areas, allowing for safer crossing of Route 25 and the
southernmost site access drive.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Assessment.wpd
73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G. Determination of Safe Traffic Flow Volume with Respect to Cyclists and
Pedestrians
On Route 25, traffic volwnes, ADT per lane, are in the 5,000 to 9,999 range (factor score = -I).
If the ADT per lane is 10,000 or greater, a factor score of -2 would be used instead of -I and
the resulting bicycle suitability score would then be 3. According to Table 14, the
interpretation would be the same. An increase in traffic volume would not affect the present
bicycle environment.
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Text-2
74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV. TRANSPORTATION:
Summary
Disk #390, Cross Sound Ferry
File: Traffic:\Cover
75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Cross Sound Ferry Service provides a critical link in Long Island's transportation network. It
provides a transportation connection between the eastern tip of Long Island and New England for
autos, trucks, freight, buses and walk-on passengers. Currently, the vessel service operates five
combination auto and passenger vessels, the largest having a capacity of 120 cars and 1,000
passengers, and one that services exclusively passengers and has a maximum capacity of 400.
The passenger service only vessel, the Sea-Jet I, is a high speed ship that started trips in 1995 in
response to growing demand for passenger-only service. With the initiation of the high speed vessel
service, walk-on passengers who were using the auto vessels were given a new option. The bulk of
the walk-on passengers, which had previously been accommodated on the two largest of the auto
carrying vessels were attracted to the high speed vessel. Further, the high speed vessel was
scheduled to arrive and depart port closer to arrival and departure of the smaller of the auto carrying
vessels. The new scheduling thus moved vehicle arrivals and departures at the Orient terminal
associated with walk-on passengers to hours of the day when the small auto carrying vessels
generated little traffic.
Records indicate the passenger and freight service was initiated in the 1700's with the advent of auto
transport service in 1923. The service has become increasingly popular. Data provided by the Cross
Sound Ferry indicates that auto carrying has increased an average of 4% per year over the past 6
years while walk-on passenger service is currently increasing at a rate of 5% per year. These rates
are in comparison with a New York State Department of Transportation estimate which predicts that
traffic on the State highways in Southold is increasing at a rate of 3% per year. Within the vicinity
of the Cross Sound terminal in Orient it was also noted that Orient State Park increased attendance
by 4% between 1996 and 1997, serving 121,000 people from January 1,1997 to August 31, 1997.
We have found no cause-and-effect relationship between the availability of high speed passenger
service and growth in ridership.
Growth of the Cross Sound ridership has caused some operational problems within the vicinity of
the terminal at Orient in that at certain peak usage times it appears that inadequate parking is
available on site to accommodate demand of the walk-on ridership. The adequacy of the parking,
however, is only a factor during the months of June, July and August when peak travel occurs.
During the months of May and September ridership is down by over 40% and there is plenty of
excess capacity in the existing parking lots. Indeed for the most part, the existing parking
accommodated the existing 1997 ridership on almost all days because of parking management
techniques implemented by Cross Sound to maximize use of the available parking.
The proposed project is to add 155 parking spaces to the existing parking facilities by developing
the "Trust Parcel" which lies to the east of the "Snack Bar Parcel" and that currently provides most
of the on-site parking. With the addition of the 155 parking spaces peak summer demand will
continue to be accommodated conveniently on site and Cross Sound can satisfy the growth of
demand for passenger service while preventing parking problems in the vicinity of the terminal.
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Summary.wpd
76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The additional parking spaces will primarily allow for normally anticipated increases in the ridership
of walk-on passengers and the most significant numbers of walk-on passengers utilize the three
morning runs of the passenger-only vessel to depart Orient. The same passengers then use the last
three return trips of the passenger-only vessel to return to Orient. The study concentrated on these
analyses periods as the additional parking will have no measurable effect at other times. It was
further observed that the earliest (8:00 A.M.) departure and earliest return are far below capacity and
adequate parking is always available. It is anticipated that half of the passenger-only ridership
growth will occur during this time period, but that it is not project related as adequate parking would
always be available. In addition, the 10:00 A.M. passenger-only departure currently runs almost at
capacity during peak season and appears to be unaffected by the existing parking. In the future,
additional parking will maintain this condition but not increase it as the capacity of this vessel has
already been reached. Therefore, an increase in ridership and parking will have no effect on this time
period. Likewise, the 7:40 return trip back to Orient seems largely at capacity so expansion of the
ridership would concentrate on the 5:40 or 9:40 return trips and be roughly equal.
Using the 5% per year growth rate in passengers and projecting that to the total ridership of the first
three vessels leaving Orient, it was assumed that all of the growth would occur equally on the first
and third vessels out as the second does not have room for growth. The return of these passengers
was equally spread out across the 5 :40 and 9:40 returning vessels.
In 1998, it is projected that ridership for the 12:00 departure would rise by 16 and generate 8
additional vehicles. This traffic would be accommodated on the existing Sea Jet I departure at that
hour. It is assumed that the return trips would use the 9:40 return trip. By 2002, the additional
growth could generate 39 additional vehicles for the 12:00 Noon departure and 39 additional for the
return trips for the 9:40 P.M. vessel. By the year 2007, growth could generate 75 additional vehicles
for the 12:00 Noon departure and 75 additional for the 9:40 P.M. return trip, again only during peak
season.
It must be remembered that while traffic will grow, maximum usage will still be associated with the
10:00 A.M. departure and 7:40 arrival which is most popular due to its timing. Indeed, growth may
well not proceed at the current 5% growth rate because of the extent to which it must take place
during proven unpopular times. Moreover, passenger traffic actually decreased in 1996 from 1995
levels. For the purposes of this study, however, the 5% growth rate has been utilized.
It must be recognized that the additional parking will accommodate demand primarily during one
or two hours of the day two or three months of the year, and will not be used during the remaining
nine months of the year.
The analysis of traffic impact as stated above, focuses on the possible impacts of the additional
traffic on the three hours of a weekday, Saturday and Sunday during the peak season. Further, the
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Summary.wpd
77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
analysis looked at three individual segments of Route 25 between Greenport and Orient for the future
year 2002 and future year 2007 conditions. As a result of this analysis, it was determined that
changes in levels of service will occur five and ten years into the future due to the normal growth
in traffic caused by a multitude of reasons unassociated with the construction of the proposed
parking lot. Indeed, although not analyzed as part of this Study, the Study results indicate that the
growth of traffic in the surrounding area will lead to lower levels of service on the three segments
of Route 25 studied during weekdays, Saturday and Sundays for many of the hours of the day from
7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. not specifically analyzed in this Study.
The analysis further indicated that if the growth in walk-on passenger ridership continues at 5% per
year, levels of service would fall for several additional time periods for the three study segments.
The changes in levels of service would only be associated with the three hours of operation of the
high speed vessel departing Orient at 12:00 Noon and arriving at Orient at 5:40 P.M. and 9:40 P.M.
These changes in levels of service must be understood within the context of the 10 year analysis
period and the changes in levels of service that will occur without the project action due to the
normal growth of traffic which the project only accommodates.
The magnitude of change related to the development of the additional parking spaces to
accommodate the walk-on passenger vessel service is far less than the changes attributable to the
normal growth of traffic primarily because other growth is occurring throughout the day and is not
relegated to a three hour period of the day only a few months of the year. Even when looking just
at the three hour period when the additional parking may accommodate peak ridership, there are
more levels of service changes from growth unrelated to the project as related to the project. The
change attributable to the project in the western analysis segment is negligible because the traffic
already on the highway serving the adjacent community is already high. In the central and eastern
analysis segments where community traffic is lighter, the increase in traffic that could be attributable
to the project is more recognizable, although it results in no poorer levels of service than are
currently encountered in the western segment of the study area.
It must be further reiterated that the analysis, by taking the anticipated growth at a continuing 5%
per year assuming it occurs primarily in the analyses hours, and utilizing low peak hour factors, has
looked at the worst case impacts. It is unlikely that growth will continue at the 5% pace because
growth in walk-on ridership must occur at unpopular times. Further, these impacts will only occur
during two to three months of the year and only on limited days during that period when peak travel
occurs.
As part of the study of transportation along Route 25 between Greenport and Orient, an examination
of accident statistics was made. The accident experience on this portion of Route 25 prior to 1996
was somewhat higher than the statewide average for similar facilities. However, in 1994 and 1995
Disk #390.Cross Sound Ferry
File: Summary.wpd
78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the State reconstructed the roadway, provided drainage, installed new signing and pavement
markings, and improved the condition of the shoulders. As a result, accident statistics for 1996 show
a decrease in accidents to below the statewide rate. Further, a detailed examination of reportable
accidents in 1996 showed no location with more than one accident and no frequency of type or
location that would indicate problems with congestion or roadway geometrics.
Any increase in traffic, that may be attributable to the increase in parking spaces as a result of the
project, will not result in new maximum hourly volumes of traffic than are already being
accommodated on the roadway at other times there is no reason to suspect that these increases will
result in additional safety problems.
Bicycle and pedestrian use along Route 25 was also examined. In general, usage was found to be
low but was significant. It was also noteworthy that the Cross Sound Ferry contributes to Route 25's
popularity with bicyclists because of the numbers transported by the vessel during the summer
months. Route 25 between Greenport and Orient was also rated for its suitability as a bicycle route
using available criteria. The roadway was found to be user-friendly for intermediate and experienced
bikers, particularly due to its wide high quality shoulders and light adjacent traffic loads. This
criteria was re-examined in light of the anticipated traffic growth likely to be experienced on Route
25 and no degradation of quality is anticipated.
It is recommended that curb stops as were used in the "West Parcel" be used to create efficient
parking aisles throughout the lot. By creating these aisles with curb stops or other means, drivers
would be clear as to where the parking spaces are and where two-way traffic is allowed. The
improved lot would efficiently facilitate more parking spaces than the existing parking area.
It is further recommended that signing be provided to guide pedestrians to parking areas. In addition
to the signing, walkways with sanctions should be provided that will guide pedestrians to the parking
area and separate them from the vehicle flow. This will also help to expedite the unloading of the
vehicles from the auto-ferry by providing a clear travel path for the exiting vehicles.
To improve pedestrian safety, two crosswalks should also be provided at the site. One crosswalk
should run in the east-west direction connecting the Terminal parcel and the Snack Bar Parcel. The
other crosswalk should run in the north-south direction within the Snack Bar parcel parking lot. The
purpose of providing the crosswalks is to concentrate the majority of pedestrians in these two areas,
allowing for safer crossing of Route 25 and the southernmost site access drive.
Disk #390-Cross Sound Ferry
File: Summary.wpd
79