Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Richmond Creek Farms
........ . . . . HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney "- ., ! " )"-' j. ~ ..-: .:::.-.;' SCOTI L HARRIS Supervisor -, .J, '\ MATIHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney ",j' , ',,' ~ 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 ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 10, 1991 William D. Moore, Esq. Moore & Moore Clause Commons, Suite 3 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Richmond Creek Farms Dear Bill: By letter dated Noveml?er 27, 1990 you wrote to me advising that you had asked Matt Kiernan to hold off on making a determination from our office regarding the Town's position on the zoning yield for the above-referenced subdivision until you had an opportunity to review the Planning Board's files and comment on same. Your November 27th letter has received a good deal of attention by the Town. Both Matt and I have had an opportunity to review your letter and have discussed it together at length. Based on all the facts and circumstances surrounding this subdivision application, and after a review of what is contained in the Planning Board's files, it is my opinion, in which Matt concurs, that the zoning yield on this subdivision is one acre. Among the factors which Matt and I found particularly compelling in reaching our conclusion is the fact that on April 12, 1982, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the preliminary subdivision map for Richmond Creek Farms. As you correctly assert in your November 27th letter, this date is critical because Section 100-311 B)( 2) of the Zoning Ordinance (now 100-32 (B)( 2)) grandfathered all subdivisions which have been the subject of a preliminary map hearing prior to May 20, 1983. In addition to the foregoing, which Matt and I feel alone, properly accords this subdivision one acre density, on September 27, 19811, the Town Board granted the owners of this subdivision relief from the May, 1983 upzoning. Please also be advised that your September 27th letter was circulated to the Town Board and Matt and I discussed the contents of your letter with the Town Board on several occasions. lastly, we have advised the Town Board of our feeling that the proper density on this subdivision is one acre. ... .I. ." .. . . William D. Moore. Esq. June 10. 1991 Page 2 Should you have any questions with regard to this matter. please do not hesitate to call either Matt or me. Very truly yours. ;Jffc:~ Harvey A. Arnott Town Attorney HAA: mls cc: Scott L. Harris. Supervisor Town Board Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman. Planning Board . . . HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney "" ~, " 4.' J'; ;~ " , . - . ....i..... v' ....._. " . .~~\ // ,"t. ,) ~/ '~.: .~'",/ ._,,~~ SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor MATIHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765- I 823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Town Board Matthew G, Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney March 22, 1991 Richmond Creek Associates Subdivision Harvey and I would like to discuss the enclosed letter, which may involve litigation, at the next executive session. .' .. . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennell Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 Southald, New York I 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attorney ~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman "3tlf/(s.- Disputed Zoning Density of Richmond Creek Farms Subdivision, peconic. FROM: RE: DATE: March 20, 1991 The enclosed information is being submitted in response to your January request for answers to three questions: - whether the factual allegations made by William D. Moore in his letter of November 27, 1990, are accurate; - whether there are additional ~gnificant or relevant facts that are not in Mr. Moore's letter which may have a bearing on his arguments; and - whether the Planning Board has additional comments regarding the claims made by Mr. Moore. If additional questions should arise, please contact me directly. . . Review of Allegations By William D. Moore For ease of reading, this review follows Mr. Moore's letter, paragraph by paragraph. Further, the paragraphs were numbered, as seen on the attached, marked copy. Paragraph il: Mr. Moore asserts as fact that the proposed application is the exact same application that was submitted in 1975. But, this fact is not proven; and is in dispute. The nature of the dispute will be clearer as we review the remainder of the letter. Paragraph i2: No comment necessary here. Paragraph i3: The applicant's initial inquiry was made in 1975. The nature of the review activity can be seen by glancing at the attached chronological synopsis of the correspondence within the Planning Board's file. Appendix A. This chronology is somewhat lengthy. But, it has been included because it reveals information that was not included by Mr. Moore in his letter, but which may be significant or relevant to your review of the situation. This information will be brought out in our review of the subsequent paragraphs. Paragraph i 4: The information in this paragraph is essentially correct, with the possible exception of the f~st and last sentences. There were actually two pUblic hearings on the preliminary maps; the first having been recessed and closed for lack of information from the Highway Department and the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The second pUblic hearing was held on May 10, 1982. And on June 15, 1982, preliminary approval was granted. It is true that the Suffolk County Department of Health Services denied this developer's initial request for approval of individual wells on lots of less than 40,000 square feet. However, there is evidence in our file that the developer had petitioned the Board of Health for a variance from this requirement. There is a copy of a Health Department letter in the Planning Board file to the effect that a hearing had been scheduled before the Board of Health for August 13, 1982. Mr. Moore does not divulge the results of this hearing. Nor does he explain why the owners as late as 1984, had still not provided requested information to the Health Department. Consequently, we are not in a position to determine whether the developer actively pursued his application for a variance. Unless Mr. Moore produces additional documentation from the Board of Health and the owners, we should not assume that the developer could not obtain Health Department approval for this subdivision. . . Paragraph #5: Mr. Moore is correct in stating that the Town Board upzoned land to two acre zoning in May 1983, with a grandfather stipulation extended to all subdivisions that had been the sUbject of a preliminary hearing before May 23, 1983. On the face of it, it appears that this subdivision was grandfathered. However, it appears that there was no activity by the developer from the date of his preliminary approval in June of 1982 until April of 1984 when he petitioned the Town Board for relief from the two acre zoning requirement. The Planning Board's position at that time was that the preliminary approval had expired in December of 1982 due to the applicant's failure to submit a final set of plans. Section AI06-24 A.(2) of the Subdivision Regulations states that "Failure to sub;nit all or a portion of the final plat for final plat approval within six (6) months shall automatically cancel the preliminary plat approval, unless a request for an extension of time is granted by the Planning Board. Such extension shall be granted only if the proposed subdivision fUlly conforms to the zoning regulations in effect at the time such extension is applied for." Nevertheless, in response to a petition by the owners, the Town Board chose to grant the requested relief on September 23, 1984. Paragraph # 6: The Planning Board did request an opinion from Town Attorney Robert Tasker as noted in this paragraph. Tasker's April response is accurately reported. It should be noted that Tasker specifically said the Plannin~Board could review an amended map changing the cluster map to a standard map. Paragraph #7: The contents in this paragraph are essentially correct. What has been left out, is the fact that the property owners did not tell the Planning Board about the marina proposal at the time of sketch approval. That information came to the Board from other sources. In March of 1986, the applicants withdrew their marina application from the Board of Trustees. Paragraph #8: The facts presented in this paragraph correspond to the facts in the file, except that there is no record of preliminary plats being submitted in February of 1987. However, the concern about the water is best expressed as it was written by the Town's environmental consultant. "A feasibility study for the extension of water to serve this project is underway but not complete. Feasibility is assumed, but not concluded. Suppose it is not feasible, can this project proceed? The authors say it cannot, but are proceeding with it anyway. We would recommend that the DEIS include in it the results of the feasibility study or else there may not be project." . . There is a letter in our file dated July 8, 1986 from the Health Department which states that three of the test wells are not deep enough, and that one of those wells contained nitrates and pesticides in excess of State drinking water standards: (Nitrates at 12.5 mg/l, Aldicarb at 23 ppb and Carbofuran at 9 ppb). The letter states that a community water system method of water supply is required. Paragraph lf9: There is no evidence in the file to substantiate the information in this paragraph. I have spoken with Judith T. Terry. Neither of us have been able to find a 1988 Town Board resolution requiring public ownership of community water systems. Paragraph If 10: The only information in this paragraph that can be verified by the file are the Town Attorney's memo to the Planning Board and the Planning Board's subsequent letters of September 1988 to Mr. Bruer and to the Suffolk County Water Authority, and Mr. Bruer's response of September 30th. No other information can be confirmed. Paragraph lf11: There was a meeting between government officials of the Village and the Town to discuss the possibility of extending the franchise. The meeting was probably held in response to a letter from the Village of Greenport dated January 24, 1989. However, Mr. Moore is incorrect in stating that the Town "did in fact refuse to extend the franchise." The,Town Board has simply not taken any action in response to the request. Paragraph If 12: This statement is true. Paragraph If 13: There is no evidence in the file to corroborate the June 21, 1989 letter of property owners to the Suffolk County Water Authority. Through the SCWA the Planning Board knew that the SCWA did take test borings and drill a well on the owner's Mill Road property. There is a copy of the contract with the SCWA in the file. On August 22, 1990, the owner's environmental consultant sent a letter confirming a meeting with staff during which he had requested a listing of what additional data would be required in order to satisfy SEQRA. Paragraph If 14: Mr. Moore makes an assumption here that is not substantiated by any facts; and that is that the only way the owners could have gotten final approval for their subdivision was to obtain public water. Since the owners never submitted a reviesed DEIS as per the Planning Board's request in 1987, the environmental review of this project never moved forward. Had . . it done so, the owners would have been forced by law to examine alternative development proposals, one of which might very well have been to reduce the density. For instance the developer had the option of proceeding with five acre lots, which are not subject to the same level of review by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Finally, the initial requirement that the water supply system was needed was made by the Health Department, not the Town. Paragraph #15: There is no explanation as to why the owners themselves delayed in proceeding with an application they originally made in 1975. Paragraph #16: The assertion of diligence is a SUbjective statement. Paragrpah #17, The determination of whether the comparison is "strikingly similar" is left to the Town Attorney's impartial judgement. Paragraph #18: By referring to the Angel Shores case, Mr. Moore is implying that the maps of this subdivision underwent repeated revisions since receiving preliminary plat approval in 1982 due to the Planning Board's actions. You can review the chronological history and the following facts and make your own determination. First, Mr. Moore's letter would ~ead one to believe that there has been only one set of owners' of this property since the 1975 application. In fact there have been two. The current owners bought this property in July of 1985, more than three years after preliminary approval had been granted. The original owners submitted maps on 6-16-81, 7-30-81, 2-19-82. The last map was granted preliminary approval. The new owners submitted a new, revised map on June 24, 1985 for sketch plan approval. This map was revised in September and October of 1985. Approval was granted in November.of 1985, for the October map, then rescinded in 1986 because of the owners' application to the Trustees to add a marina. The Planning Board had not been informed of same and subsequently withdrew sketch approval. A minor revision in the layout of Wells Road to eliminate a "T" shaped intersection was a condition of the first sketch approval in 1985. Revised maps were sent in February and March of 1986, the latter of which was granted sketch approval that same month (after the marina proposal before the Trustees was withdrawn). The next map in the file is dated April 20, 1987. It presumably was submitted with the DEIS, since that document bears the same receipt date. No further submissions were made until August 23, 1990, when the owners' environmental consultant submitted a 1988 revision of the April 20, 1987 map. We have not been able to review this last map because the supplemental . . DEIS has not been submitted and the status of this application vis a vis zoning has not been clarified. In closing, the Planning Board decided not to add sUbjective comments, but rather to let the facts speak for themselves, and to let your office make an impartial determination as to whether this subdivision application is entitled to grandfathered one acre zoning. . . . RICHMOND CREEK FARMS Chronological History up to August 29, 1990 Oct. 21, 1975 Letter notifying PB of intent to develop former Skwara farm. Feb. 7, 1977 Additional plans submitted. May 17, 1978 July 31, 1978 Revised maps submitted. Revised maps submitted, pursuant to June 5th meeting. Sept. 20, 1978 Oct. 25, 1978 Request for permission to cluster. TB ok's cluster, but wants wetlands to be excluded. May 16, 1979 May 29, 11979 July 5, 1979 July 30, 1979 Developer submits qluster maps. PB asks TB if cluster is ok. TB oked cluster concept on June 26, 1979. PB notes problems with map. Nov. 2, 1979 Revised maps submitted pursuant to July letter. Nov. 29, 1979 PB declares itself lead agency. December - January 1980 January 1980 Jan. 24, 1980 Dispute over yield and cluster calculations. State DEC requires a permit. Letter from SCDHS notes that obtaining potable water may be a problem due to high nitrate levels. June 2, 1980 July 20, 1981 August 1981 Nov. 9, 1981 Dec. 8, 1981 April 12, 1982 May 10, 1982 June 15, 1982 July 9, 1982 July 22, 1982 Aug. 20, 1984 Sept. 25, 1984 March 26, 1985 April 1, 1985 . . Sketch approval granted to 7/14/78 map (amended 5/14/80) subject to open space being designated as park & playground (Seqra process was never finished). Fee paid (Receipt date) May 19, 1981 date of letter with fee and application form. Receipt date is not noted. Seqra process started again. Maps redistributed. Project is unlisted; initial determination: non-significant (based on short form). PB grant sketch approval to? PB sends to TB for approval of cluster. TB approves cluster concept (againl). Public hearing on preliminary maps. Recessed. Public hearing on preliminary maps. PB grants preliminary approval. SCDHS schedules hearing date for an appeal in July, then reschedules to August. PB receives notice,of DEC permit application for seven lots on wetlands that are less than 40,000 sq. ft. in area. PB recommends denial of relief to Richmond Creek Farms. Final application was not made within 180 days of preliminary approval. TB grants relief from 2 acre zoning (1983). Petitioner claimed they were still providing information to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. PB asks Town Attorney if map can be changed from cluster to standard given that relief from 2 acre zoning was granted on cluster. TA responds that relief from TB was not needed since preliminary hearing and approval was prior to May 20, 1983. Also, that another hearing should be held if map is to be changed from cluster to standard layout. July 2, 1985 Nov. 18, 1985 Jan. 27, 1986 Jan. 21, 1986 Jan. 3, 1986 Jan. 29, 1986 - March 6, 1986 March 10, 1986 March 18, 1986 March 25, 1986 March 24, 1986 May 2, 1986 May 1, 1986 May 1, 1986 May 30, 1986 July 8, 1986 July 14, 1986 . . Emilita notes that he feels that if map is changed, 1 acre zone is lost. PB approved sketch map for cluster concept (10/15/85 map) subject to revising Wells Rd. by eliminating the "T" intersection. PB rescinds sketch approval. Asks for intent re: a marina for these lots. New York State Department Of State comments on application for Army Corps Of Engineers permit for a marina on Richmond Creek. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation comments (mostly negative). Correspondence from Trustees to DEC or applicant noting that application for marina & dredging is not complete. Revised maps sent to PB minus docking facilities & with revisions (open space to Wells Road). Marina plan withdrawn from Trustees by applicant. f . DEC opposes 6 unders~zed lots along waterfront. PB takes lead agency; grants sketch approval to 3/7/86 map. Bruer sets forth standstill scenario. Long EAF sent in. Project determined to be TYpe I and positive declaration was initial determination. Trustees ask for 50' Row access to water and filtration of drainage and road runoff. SCDHS says water is polluted: community system needed. PB issues a positive declaration. Aug. 4, 1986 Jan. 15, 1987 April 20, 1987 April 28, 1987 June 16, 1987 July 8, 1987 Aug. 3, 1987 Nov. 13, 1987 Aug. 25, 1988 Sept. 7, 1988 Sept. 30, 1988 Oct. 3, 1988 Aug. 22, 1990 . . Scoping session. Bruer writes that EIS is being written: and they are working with Greenport for water. DEIS submitted. Bruer writes to ask if DEIS has been reviewed; Is it satisfactory? Bruer again asks for PB's comments on DEIS. Emilita submits this review of DEIS to PB. Supplement needed before public re',iew. Planning Board accepts Emilita's review. Asks for supplemental DEIS. Owner's environmental consultant notifies Planning Board that he is still working on supplement. Richmond Creek declared a Critical Environmental Area by Southold Town Trustees. Letter sent to Suffolk County Water Authority asking if they had before them an application to provide pUblic water. Letter sent to Rudqlph Bruer, attorney for the subdivision owners, asking for update on status of negotiations with Greenport for water. His last correspondence was January 15, 1987. Bruer responds that water service contracts with Village "should be signed within a short periOd of time." Suffolk County Water Authority responds. They have no application before them by either subdivision or Village. Bowman sends letter confirming meeting of 8/90 and asks for determination of status. .' ! " I , . r- . \ ..-., :l~@l5~~ZP ?'",\ ; ~ l MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law Clause Commons Suite 3 Mattituck, New York 11952 :::1J ; I' ~ '" " "-jl -,.-. TC'':.JN Ai'TO;'1i',I::':',? -r~J\,'.:r: U::: S("":. - Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax: (516) 298-5664 William D, Moore Patricia C. Moore Margaret Rutkowski Secretary November 27, 1990 Harvey Arnoff, Esq. Southold Town Attorney Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 RE: Richmond Creek Associates subdivision Dear Harvey: As I mentioned to Matt, we represent Richmond Creek Associates with respect to property owned by them in Peconic and which is in the subdivision review process before the Planning Board. The owners of this property find themselves in a situation similar to that of Angel Shores in that an application for a major subdivision was submitted back in 1975 but had not received final plat approval before the January, 1989 amendments to the zoning ordinance. From 1975 until September 1990 the owners and the Planning Board had been proceeding with a one acre subdivision layout on this property. I had asked Matt to hold off on making a determination from your office regarding the Town's position on the zoning yield (ie one acre or two acre) until I had the opportunity to conduct a careful review of the lengthy Planning Board files on this subdivision and to provide you with my thoughts regarding same. In the course of this letter I will set forth the chronology of events surrounding the subdivision process for this particular property as I was able to determine it from the Planning Board's file and material provided by our client. As I stated above, the subdivision process began back as early as 1975 when inquiry was made to the Planning Board by the attorneys for the owners of the property requesting an opportunity to discuss a subdivision layout with the Planning Board. From 1977 through November 1987 the Planning Board file reveals continued activity on the file by both the owner and the Planning Board. Dates of particular importance include the April 12, 1982 public hearing on the preliminary map. This date is critical because section 100-31(B)(2) of the zoning ordinance (now l00-32(B)(2)) grandfathered all subdivisions which had been the subject of a preliminary map public hearing prior to May 20, 1983. On June 15, 1982 the Planning Board granted preliminary plat approval of a cluster subdivision with a one acre zoning yield. Unfortunately, the Suffolk County Health Department would not approve such a (. ""e t , MOORE & MOORE November 27, 1990 Richmond Creek Farms subdivision subdivision because lots were less than 40,000 square feet in area. In May, 1983 the Southold Town Board upzoned all residential property from one acre to two acre zoning and, notwithstanding, the apparent automatic grandfathering of this subdivision application by virture of former section 100-31, the owners were told that they must seek relief from the Southold Town Board to proceed with a one acre subdivision of the property. The Town Board granted such relief on September 27, 1984. In March, 1985 the Planning Board requested an opinion from the then Town Attorney Robert Tasker asking if the Planning Board could consider a different subdivision layout from the specific one which had been "grandfathered" because the Health Department would not approve the grandfathered layout. The Town Attorney advised the Planning Board by letter dated April 1, 1985 that this subdivision had been automaticalJy grandfathered and that there should not have been a petition required for relief from the upzoning, and more importantly, that the Board could review and approve an amended layout provided it held a public hearing before approving same. In June, 1985 revised maps with a one acre layout were submitted by the new owners of the property. These maps underwent several revisions at the request of the Planning Board (letters in file dated October 16, 1985 from Young & Young summarizes revisions made to maps; and letter dated November 20, 1985 from Planning Board to Edson & Bruer, attorneys for owners) and received sketch plan approval on November 20, 1985. In January, 1986 the sketch approval was rescinded over concerns regarding a possible marina that was being considered by the applicant. In February, 1986 the owners advised the Planning Board that plans for the marina were dropped and in March 1986 the owners submitted another revised sketch plan re-Iocating, at the Planning Board's request, the open space. On March 24, 1986 the Planning Board approved these latest amended sketch maps. At the same time, the Planning Board declared itself lead agency under SEQRA On July 31, 1986 the Planning Board advised the owner of its "positive declaration" under SEQRA and advised that a scoping session would be held on August 4,1986 with the Planning Board's environmental consultant to discuss the issues that had to be addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. In January, 1987 the owner advised the Planning Board that the DEIS was still in preparation and that the owners were negotiating with the Village of Greenport for a supply of public water for the subdivision. In February, 1987 preliminary plats were submitted to the Planning Board and in April, 1987 the DEIS was submitted. Comments to the DEIS were made by the environmental consultant and on August 3, 1987 the Planning Board adopted a resolution requesting that the consultant's comments be addressed in a revised draft impact statement. One area of concern to be addressed in the revised draft was the feasibility of a public water supply to serve the subdivision. In November, 1987 the owner's environmental consultant advised the Planning Board that he was still compiling the information needed for the DEIS. 2 ce -. ( MOORE & MOORE November 27, 1990 Richmond Creek Farms subdivision In December, 1987 the owners of the property entered into a contract to purchase property located at Mill Lane in Peconic to be used by the Village of Greenport as a wen site in exchange for the Village providing water to the subdivision. The provision of a wen site in exchange for water was in keeping with the Village's water policy for new hookups outside the incorporated vinage and the use of a public as opposed to private/community water supply was consistent with Southold Town's stated policy regarding water supplies to subdivisions. The Town Board had adopted a resolution I believe in 1988 declaring that an community water supply systems were to be owned and operated by public not private entities. In May, 1988 the owners purchased the property for the wen site and in June 1988 the owners were negotiating the terms of a water supply agreement with the Village. In July, 1988 the then Town Attorney suggested that the Planning Board determine if the property being subdivided and the wen site were outside the franchise area of the Village of Greenport, and that, if in fact the property were outside the franchise area, that Southold Town Board approval may be necessary to extend the area to include these properties within the franchise. In September, 1988 the Planning Board made inquiry of the owner to determine how their negotiations were progressing with the Village of Greenport. At the same time, the Planning Board asked the Suffolk County Water Authority if they had received any application for an extension of the Greenport franchise to provide water to the subject property. The owners' attorney advised the Planning Board by letter dated September 30, 1988 that an arrangements had been made with the Village of Greenport to exchange the wen site in Peconic for a water supply to the subdivision. In November, 1988 a water contract with the Village of Greenport was signed. I have been unable to find a record of a formal request by the Village of Greenport to the Town to extend the franchise area to include the Mill Lane wen site and the Richmond Creek Associates subdivision, but the Town did in fact refuse to extend the franchise. I do not have the date of such refusal; I will check with Judy Terry to see if she has this information. In January, 1989 the Town enacted the sweeping revisions to the zoning ordinance and the subject property was designated R-80. On June 6, 1989 the Southold Town Board adopted a resolution declaring that the Suffolk County Water Authority is the sole authority for implementation of any water supply system outside the Village of Greenport franchise area and that no subdivision requiring a water supply system could be approved unless first approved by the Suffolk County Water Authority. On June 21, 1989 the owners of the property sent information and requested a meeting with the Suffolk County Water Authority to discuss the proposed well site and water supply from the Authority. During the fall of 1989 the Water Authority conducted test borings and drilled a well on the owner's Mill Lane property and in July 1990 entered 3 ( . jr. " MOORE & MOORE November '1:7, 1990 Richmond Creek Farms subdivision into a contract to provide a water supply to the Richmond Creek Associates subdivision. In August, 1990 the owner's environmental consultant wrote to the Planning Board to determine what additional information was needed to continue the SEQRA review now that the issue of a public water supply had been resolved. As you can see, the owners of this property were diligent in their pursuit of approval from 1985 when revised maps with new layouts were submitted through 1987 when the DEIS was submitted and then from 1987 through 1990 as they went first to the Village of Greenport for water and then to the Suffolk County Water Authority for water to satisfy the Town's requirement that subdivisions must be served by public water suppliers, and in particular, the Suffolk County Water Authority if outside the Greenport franchise area. Without such approval, the Planning Board would not proceed with the subdivision. Delays in receiving final approval of this subdivision are not the fault of the owner, but have been occasioned by the requirement that the subdivision use public and not a private communtiy water supply system. Delays were further encountered when the Town's position regarding the Suffolk County Water Authority were changed. It is, I believe, a fair statement that in 1987 the Water Authority was not welcome in the Town of Southold. (The often stated belief was that development would be sure to follow if the Water Authority was welcomed in the Town.) I have had occasion to speak with representatives of the Water Authority and they indicated that the Authority has no interest in supplying water to an area or municipality where it is not wanted. Accordingly, the owners negotiated with the Village of Greenport for a water supply to the site to satisfy the Town's requirement that a public entity supply water for subdivisions requiring a community supply. I believe that it was in 1989 the Suffolk County Water Authority stepped in to take over the beleagured Captain Kidd Estates water supply; when the Authority demonstrated its ability to solve the difficult problems at Captain Kidd, the Town adopted the June, 1989 resolution declaring the Water Authority the sole purveyor of water outside the Greenport franchise area. In any event, the owners acted diligently from 1987 to 1990 to procure a public water . supply to satisfy the Town's policy regarding community water supply systems. Acting in accordance with the 1985 Town Attorney's letter advising that the layout could be amended and following the Town's water supply requirements, the owners of this property expended money which included the purchase of property to provide a well site. The fact pattern surrounding the development of this property is strikingly similar to the facts involved in the Angel Shores subdivision. In this case from 1985 through 1989 the new owner and the Planning Board proceeded with the one acre application review even though the particular layout had been changed from the "grandfathered" layout which had received preliminary plat approval. This is much like the case of Angel Shores which had received sketch plan approval before the 1983 upzoning, then petitioned for and 4 . , , . (e ;. \, . MOORE & MOORE November '1:1, 1990 Richmond Creek Farms subdivision received relief from the 1983 upzoning from the Town Board and then amended the maps by including additional property and revising the layout which, at the time of the 1989 re- zoning, had not been the subject of a preliminary plat public hearing. In the present case, the owners, at great expense, pursued the Planning Board's approval from 1985 with revised maps through 1990 as they pursued contracts for the public water supply. As you review the history of this file, I believe that you too will notice the similarities between this subdivision and the Angel Shores subdivision review processes and will conclude that the maps of Richmond Creek which had received preliminary plat before the 1983 upzoning and which have subsequently undergone repeated revisions should .amilaTly continue pursuant to the one acre grandfathering of 1984. Just as in Angel Shores I believe that a review of the history leads to the same conclusion that the 1989 amendment to the zoning ordinance was not intended to effect a change of zoning with respect to this property nor was it intended to repeal the Town Board's resolution of September 27, 1984 providing that the subject premises be subject to the Bulk requirements of the Southold Town Zoning Code in effect prior to May 20, 1983. If you have any questions regarding the information contained or referred to in this letter, or if there is any additional information which I can provide to you, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will attempt to furnish same as quickly as possible. I believe it would be quite useful for us to discuss this matter so that I may respond to any question or concern you may have before you provide your opinion regarding the zoning to the Planning Board. I am available to meet with you at your convenience and look forward to discussing this matter once you have had an opportunity to acquaint yourself with the particulars. ~ \~~ yours, William D. Moore WDM/mr cc: Richmond Creek Associates 5 . . cr '7?!' ~~P>?'-~Z?b", ~ , VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM TO: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Members of the Town Board FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Plannerr~ ~ DATE: December 26, 1989 RE: Technical Staff Meeting with Suffolk County Water Authority on December 15, 1989. As reported in my last memorandum of December 11, 1989, the purpose of theDecember 15th meeting was to address ongoing issues of concern to the Town and the Water Authority. A synopsis of the meeting follows: 1. The Suffolk County Water Authority submitted a letter in response to our environmental coordination request on The Hamlet in Cutchogue. The Hamlet is a 160 unit project proposed for a 46 acre site located at the northern boundary of Griffing Street in Cutchogue. The SCWA was given a copy of the draft environmental impact statement to review. ,Their comments reflected the Suffolk County Health Department's position that the design of a private water supply should be resolved with the SCWA prior to the issuance of any approvals for private supply systems. (To date, the applicant has not initiated any discussions with SCWA, even though they were advised to do so by the Health Department in April of 1989.) David Ross, Deputy Executive Director of the SCWA, indicated in his letter that the SCWA would appreciate the Town's support of this approach for this and all future projects. 2. Mr. Ross wanted to know the status of BayView . . , Ventures' private water supply system. I have asked Victor Lessard to review his records on this matter inasmuch as the Planning Board has not received any notification from the Health Department as to whether the system has been completed. As you know, the Town has stipulated that all water systems shall be operated by the SCWA, but there have been no discussions between the developer and the SCWA. 3. The appraisals have come in for the 91 acre parcel on the east side of Laurel Lake. They are being reviewed. 4. The SCWA reviewed the findings on the proposed well site on Mill Lane in Peconic. It appears that the water quality is quite good, although there were some concerns about whether that quality would continue over the long haul. The pumping capacity of the well also looks good. Since this report had not been discussed by the SCWA Board, Ross could offer no firm indication of the direction the SCWA would take with regard to its negotiations with the developers of Richmond Creek Farms, who have approached the SCWA about providing water to their proposed subdivision. Mr. Ross and staff had come prepared to review their work of the last year with the incoming Town Board members Harris and Wickham. Since these members were not present at this meeting, Mr. Ross requested an opportunity to speak before the Town Board sometime in February of 1990. He would prefer to speak with the Board at a work session, so that his technical staff can bring the entire Board up to date on his staff's activities with regard to short and long term water management. At that time, Mr. Ross may want to discuss the Town's priorities insofar as the provision of public water is concerned. As mentioned in the December 11th"memorandum, the Housing Committee and the Planning Board have reviewed the Town's needs from their particular perspectives. However, there need to be further discussions once a new Chairman is appointed to the Housing Committee. . SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORIT leon J. Campo, Chairman Administrative offices: Oakdale. Long Island, N.Y. 117 Melvin M. Fritz, M.D., Member Area 516-589-52 Matthew B. Kondenar, Secretary James T.B. Tripp, Member Michael E. White, Member De c em b e r 1 3, 1 98 9 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planning Department Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Ms. Scopaz: Thank you for your request for comments upon the proposed private water supply system for the project entitled, "The Hamlet at Cutchogue". As you are aware, the Town Board has recently designated the Suffol k County Water Authority as the. official water purveyor for the Town. We are, therefore, quite concerned about the possible intrOduction of an additional private system into the area. The Authority's experience with the incorporation of private systems into its own distribution and supply system has been varied. We have frequently found that such incorporation involves extensive reworking of the phYSical pl ants, mains, metering systems, etc., in order for the new additions to be brought up to the Authority's design and operational standards. As the designated water purveyor for the Town, the possibility that the proposed system will eventually become part of the authority system leads us to voice these experiences. In particular, we would object to the introduction of any new water supply system which has been designed without the active involvement and approval of our engineering and operations staff. We would encourage the applicant to review the proposed system with our appropriate departments and would appreciate the Town's Support of this approach for any similar future projects. I hope these comments are of some you. r tr I y you;;! L......JI ...if DAVID ROSS Deputy Executive Director DR:jc PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ,. '. :}, _~c.. '\L.ul_.sf{~?;{ 'SC_01rl: - -rD:S___]C.cf.(Wlc ~T. - .})~#/&fi- /51 t<1~ "';i';IrJA&l~_~~2- r:/ob1I~ iI ELJiI,sAt/ I I-c{, ell-It: F C/U ~I /U{;- E ~ i z:5o~ o~ SSc..e;L' Sc..wA ~S'T R.~.!'?~!~S_i;~.sI~' !:I.5uwjll fvIt';&1!a"c! SL~Ucvi12~o< ~/,){ :I~ M! ~ ~!el'1 fhJ ILL€. t<.. S..~~c..<f.u...,J~...Lil.tc>-I....-. 1117P^Ick. ~. VV1/1,.);'Jf\. S, w~ -CH'Ff CJ.lTM;.i\ , 1fX7""7:b Oil v tl___Co..u..n.c.,J '.....Lo-tt"!.~..rU_...Sc. v.-Tlt--!d_ Iii.. i"~~~l::o~'J ~\0vl"'1'J)o,<),=\______~ !mA\''-Lb J 7Gs~ f:l:._0J4. .~~ IH --. I ~ t IOj ,II I', Iii III,., 1'1 Ii ~I IU I:! rVl;llVl" ~ :... ~'. Qj - \ 1:,-r1:J "'1. ':::::1 CD 3 _. -:ro :J ... . CD" :J :0.(0' ~ OJ o.~ ;:Ji ;:; CD co ...tL-:J"'~j--o_-_ ... '" OCD>... CDCDc:c. 'J"- v ::T_ :'-"0-1 ~ J~_q .,..,. :;:- 3 -< :J III ----.--- ----.---.- - -----.-- -.. ----------.. . --. ,.. --'~..-_..-.. -."-.- ; : ;1 Iii 1;1 " 1:1 1" t ,~ ....,..-.:...". ~ VI iD c: "C 8: -+ < :.": 0' :J :\ ":,. 1'1 :: .-.-------~i-. ..---------- .- ',,--,---, ._~___..___.___. _u..___________ ...-, ..- ..--.-.- _.....- ~__ __._+__n__._._____ '__ - -----------.-------- - ------+- --------. --- ---+-- ----- +-------_..~ - ----- .-- - - - -- +.------..---+- .--------- -------.----.-------.------ - __. ---_ _____ _ __ __ n _..__ ___________ ...------.- ._-_._-_.~--- ----_._-----_._------~.._._---_.- --- .---- -- - --.---.--- ----- --- --------.----.--+ ----+---------------- --- . '. " ~ -NFEC NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, Inc, a non-profit organization for preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life CORPORATE MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box311,Southold, N.Y. 11971 President: IRllIIk.lDllll8xRonnie Wacker Secretary:llfantJS\ll'"~~ilt2t M.E. Tomaszewski MEMBER SERVICE & INFORMATION Route 25 at Love Lane - P.O. Box 799 Mattituck, N. Y. 11952 (516) 298-8880 Southold Town Board l-1a in Road Southold, New York 11911 REaIVED NOV 1 5 1988 November 14, 1988 Sauthold T___ r1-lr Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As we all know, undisturbe9 land and unpolluted waters become scarcer every day on the North Fork. The ,enalties we pay. to permit over- buildin~ include the ~rown tide, the scallop's disappearance, de~ pleted fishin~, hi~her local taxes to pay for services needed .y the developers' houses, and the visible loss of farmland and op~ space. How much lon~er, at this rate, will boaters and tourists come here to see the same thin~ they've escaped at home? Aware of this plight, the people of Southold Town have voted $1.75 million to acquire open space. In addition, the Town will be ~ettin~ receipts from the continuation of the extra ti sales tax. And we hope before lon~ it will be receiving funds from a 2% sales tax to ee imposed on high-priced land transactions. So, through its Town Board, Southold now has to make some wise decisions about what re- maining land and water to preserve and protect. Among the natural resources we have left, the North Fork Environmental Council particularly recommends that the Town use its funds to ac- quire these four places: DAM POND This 45-acre tidal body separates East Marion from Orient. The Town owns Dam Pond. But it does not own the parcel to the west of its northern half, containing some of the most spectacular acreage on the North Fork. Still undeveloped, but planned for development, this 96-acre place is remarkable for its diversity. Here are tidal wetlands and a tidal creek (partly filled). Here are lOWlands, up- lands, old fields, and an abandoned sand and ~ravel quarry now hol- din~ five small ponds surrounded by vegetation. Here are oak forests, a tree farm, and greenbriar thickets, as well as an old dirt road reaching most of these areas. All this is in addition to the dunes and the beach on the north. mhe place is a livin~ ecology lesson. ~ome to a wide group of plant communities and animal life, including red foxes, hawks, falcons, OWls, waterfowl, and shore birds, its very variety is stunning. .... . -2- . "It's a good place to teach our kids about our land," says one Town official who has used it for summer nature classes. Offenses committed a~ainst this land oy development would be even worse than usual. The proposed road would fill existing marshland and further silt up and erode the already partly-filled tidal creek, spilling into Dam Pond. High groundwater on lower portions of the site could back sewage into the wetlands and Dam Pond. Development would destroy the site's scenic beauty, deprive the wildlife of its habitat, and further filthy the tidal waters that are the enly aome of two-thirds of our juvenile fish as well as our shellfish. The Town needs this land. RICHMOND CREEK Three undevelo~ed portions of this forked creek are left, and two-- 27-acre Richmond Shores and the 5-acre Duchow ~roperty__ have al- ready been approved for development. The other, 50-acre Richmond Creek Farms, is awaiting approval following a complete DEIS. It is these portions that we should acquire and preserve. The mouth of Richmond Creek has been dred~ed repeatedly, creating a large sand peninsula, but the backwaters of both forks of the creek have been little disturbed." It remains one of the few good shell- fishing areas we have left. And it's unpolluted. At a recent public hearing by the Southold Town Trustees, not only the North Fork Environmental Council, but the local League of Women Voters, tie North Fork Audubon Society, the New Suffolk Civic Asso- ciation, and the local Water, Land, and Wildlife Protection Group protested its development. The Trustees have designated the place a critical environmental area (CEA). Richmond Creek's shores are home to the newly-threatened diamond_ back terrapin, the endangered least tern, and the locally endangered piping plover. They're breeding grounds and resting places for mi- ~ratory birds and waterfowl, and feeding grounds for the osprey. Its waters hold nursery finfish and plentiful ShellfiSh. The State has desi~nated this area a significant wildlife and fish hahitat. It is one of the last beautiful, natural tidal wetlands left. The Town must protect it. [. D01VNS CREEK This large, unsullied salt marsh and tidal creek is one of the two or three last creeks in Southold Town not to have been dred~ed. The threatened dianomdback terrapin lives there and, except for a small bridge, an active osprey nest is the sole structure on its shores, and the mussel harvest is still plentifUl. It is a place of stunning beauty and is considered irreplaceable. On the west bank, furthermore, is an historic site which had been * County DPW Waterways Division says neither fork dredged "to their knowledge. -, , . . -3- an early Indian lo~ fortification called Fort Corchau~ after the tribe that occupied it until the 1600's and probably centuries earlier. The fort, believed to be the only one of its type to remain, is lar~ely uninvestigated, but is recorded in the DiviSbn for His- toric Places of the U.S. Interior Department. ANGEL SHORES, Section I The western half of this subdivision ~roposed south of the far end of Main Bayview Road is the most significant part environmentally of the development. It also has some archeological value. County biology teams, after study, recommend that the western part be either set aside with finality by the developer or acquired by the Town so that it can be preserved in perpetuity. I Development would largely evict the wildlife. It would displace resident deer, cut off thei~ freshwater supply, and block their corridor to a more northerly range. It would dispossess territorial birds (probably to die, because all available surrounding land is claimed by rivals), destroy the fruit-bearin~ bushes that feed much = of the wild population, and render homeless the owls and other inha- bitants of the dense conifer stands. The land and its freshwater pond would be largely claimed by human occupation. In particular, though, the large saltwater pond, a tidal wetland and a seashore nur- sery, could easily be turned into an arti~~cial playtnin~. oJ} {{. * We all a~ree that our livelihood here and certainly our own well- being depend largely on vistas, clean waters, a healthy boating and fishing industry, and the seaside tourism these bring. We've got to start somewhere to stop fouling our nest, our neighborhood, our shores, and our planet. These four endangered spaces are a good place to start. Sincerely, ROh), it. Cl1&..e''L c. Ronnie Wacker President L ..--o~~~-oe tdaUr,~aHd,~/ift . ~ . Pt'dl<<liMl Grdllp. ~, POll 11/, PECONlC, I.. 1., N.Y. 11958 ill 1<"'., ~o._\\p~, ~ U \iJ ~l n II Se.)tertber c u ~ - I U \ :~FP 2 ~1988' \ ORS OFFICE SUPERVO\~ SOUTi-IOLO TOWN IT. Bennet.t OrloY'ski, dr. Chairmen Soutbold Torm F13nnin~ BOGra J,a i n Epe 0. Southo.LG, J're 11971 ~e: hiclunond Shores ,'~icll:nond Creek .c'er.'s Dee r Sir: 1';e :~eGret to st<Jteti:et t:le letter res:.onse frOl.: YOU to our marrr letters to you does not ed6ress the-many issues that y.er;, brought to :'our ettention. V;e hS'Te followed 311 the detDils \'ihich '.}ere :Jent::'oned in vOU]' letter. ',Ie 3re [mare of all of tlJe facts n:entioned and it V'3S our orrenizati.on \"hich brour.-ht these issues to 'Tour office. In frct, os stated to vou before, we ilre the "neE 1':lJo urr.-sd en ""n'Tjro:ucC'nt"l Im.:l2ct Stud" on ~iehmond CreEk 7.orr;s. '..;"e "..ere !,ert of' the Sco1)in{" SFssion. To Iiepe2 t--- 1. Our 1 ett prs :'Bve not been pns';.rred. ~- :C. !\s stated earlier, there Fere irrervleritj.es in ,... ccnn,i.ction ,',,:ith =~':icl;monc S~-~ores. RicDI!l.Ond Creek has been declared a critici:.:L.~nV;i.r9_I);Jg~U!~l..._E'J;'.~9._'_ ,~e-hG ve r eaues't -ed-re1 e,' t ed1 y 8n "-n vi r011:'l€:, ti.l Impeet Study y,'hieh should haVE bEen initietcd by your o:r:ric e oririnc'il1y. As stated in e l~t~er to yoU several weeks E[O, ~:e have 100 ))1us siru:turcs reoUEsting em in de".th Envi:c-oILl~lltQl stl.~.d~:r of =:~ic}l.:__ono. Sllores DS v/e U!'CeG. for Ric:17~c21a Creek Farms. There is lef:~'l ,.iUstlf'icf:tion 1'01" our reC,lllE'st. ",';e hope to l;E[lr fro!t yoU soon End kindl'.' recuest thot our_. letters be rer::d end 011 issues E'ddressed. , .// 'Tlil!:1:-:~ Iouis€ L~~ s~n ;:'resid ent E: ec: ! ....Jr:h"'(r. r""C':'11 ~().'_ r('. ~~IJ'.,.!;:tef's " .. .-- .-. ~~ k~__ Mahr,kaNd.,ilildfift ' ~" l't'dl<<lMn Gi;",o/I __~'- -' .r r ...--:) ~ POB /~F'l, PECONIC, L. 1., N.Y. 11958- Supervisor Members of Town Hall, Southhold, Francis J. Murphy Southhold Town Board Main Street New York 11971 and April 1, 1988 . 7f~ Honorable Members of the Southhold Town Board _ Greetings! Re: Richmond Creek Associates Proposal for housing project in Peconic bordering on Richmond Creek There is a wealth of correspondence regarding the above mentioned organization in the Planning Board Office. We are opposed to this project and the pending water permit. There have been many illegalities in connection with this proposed project. Enforcement of environmental concerns in the future cannot be monitored because of lack of enforcement agents. We understand that a permit may be issued so that this project may be able to obtain water from a well, If the permit is obtained, this will still leave the residents of Indian Neck Lane subject to further contamination and pollution of their aquifer from the run-off and sewage from this project. The Suffolk Water Report has stated that Indian Neck area and Hog Neck area cannot be connected to any water supply and must rely on their OWn wells. We have submitted the attached proposal to the State and have received favorable answers from Stony Brook, among others. Is it possible for the town to purchase land closely surrounding Richmond Creek, one of the last creeks that is still unpolluted? Hoping to h~r from you soon, Very truly yours, cc: Planning Board Board of Trustees ill! VI m 00 Franklin Bear, Water Committee Ir~3 ':'\.. 1/7 j. 'L ~ / /l4/Jo/I". J <<--u.-C-->-t' /J !C<-"";l..:Z-1A / L ~ Vilma Louise Marston ~ . President . . 19t16 ENVIH01Ji':ENl'AL QUALITY 3DI':!) ACT - TITLE 7 - LM-in ACQUISI'l'H!I:!_ ?HOPOSAL: To evaluate and obtain surrQllndill" !.i.Qtlll.....Jjp.rj;b.e.aG.t_.-'tiJ.(i Northwest enus of land anu portions of surrounding land located at Hichmond Cree:" Peconic, Long Island for preservation purposes Submitted by Vilma Louise Harston, President Water, Land, Wildlife:ProtectionGroup PO;) IGG Peconic,L.I., N.Y. 11058 " . . B.!L: RichmonA Creek and a roved shellfish a d uncon anllna e East End. surrounding Land, creek an one ot scen~c creeJ(l:) Peconic, L.I., N.Y. 11958 1e as. remaJ.ll1nr5' unpo u cd "'""'i"f1:J.Jh~l1~ UIl Lhe Recommended: To propose that Richmond Creek and it~ surrounding tidal wetlands and land be preserved as an ecologically signif'icant area which is fragile and sensitlve Proposal: To evaluate and obtain ends and portion of preservation purposes. North East, and Northwest surr-oun .ln~~ all Or The objective of Title 7 will be realized by making the above land acquisition part of the State Project. This sensitive and frar.ile area has characteristics which fulfills several criteria. As a result of the acquisi tion and preservation ~nhancement and improvement of enviromentally. 0 sensitive lands will result as follows: 1. Scenic beauty (mixture of marshland, pines, tid:.l wetlands, beautiful tidal wetlands and other ve!;etatiolJ.., configuration of land surrounding the creek, interesting patterns of 2. Unique character, special natural beauty 3. Tidal wetlands, marshes, buffer area 5. Wildlife habitat 6. Hestorin" and preserving present acquifer for local \"ells in the immediate neighborhood (I.'Jells Road and Indian Heck Lane) ~_!<- 7. PreservatIon or the tradi. tional rr.igratinc; route and habitat--reeding and breeding grounds for many tYPes of water birrls--ducks, geese, herons, lesser terns--and ~or"1.::' birds rlu~:; reHj.dt~nt hirc'/:::, G. Haintain the protective area for winterin,'3 birds 9. Richmond Creek r.e",,,,,,,,, certificd~apl"roved for shellrish ror fishermen and recreational purposes 9. Offer protection i'or endal1j;ered speci"s the torn--comlOon, lOflut, nnd roseate at the South end or tlce. creek. I\1S0, the pipin;: plover has been seen :!laking a come back. ~,; ~ Page 1 V .1.~3rston-\'./ater, Land, ~'lildlifc Protection G ,0 . . !,ro!J<:>13_"..!:.._Land-1<cQuisilion (Cen ' t) 10. Centributes to, the public enjeyment and appreciatien ef scenic and recreational resources. 11. Lecal greund\'/ater pretectien Scenic Beauty The prapased land acquisi tian praject '"auld cantinue to, enhance the public enjoyment as to the viewing of exceptional scenic beauty. Pr~sently, there is a public access for ro....'ooats ancl c?nocs, cla::1in(;, collectini:~ mussels, and fishing; thus, p"';Jlill ,enjayment will be preserveel. Prapasals to, increase private candes will centribute to, the pallutien and contamination of the creek water, existing wells, and surround'ing \'!etlan.ds. j'jussels and clams and e>ther fish will be affected ne<:latively as presently is the case en ather ~ast~~J creeks. Vulnerability At the present time, Richmand Creek Farms Assaciates have prepesed a cende (N/E ef ere, preject (cluster cencept ef apprax. 42 he uses 11 hauses an creek) apprax 46.6 acre!?'; (N.E. \. On -the N/IJI part ef the creek, ;.jearing Canstructian has divided pertiens af land lX acreas in the area ef the min~ pines. At the r~/~q end of the creek and extreme r',:/E there arc major subdivision of property for sale and some acree,?;e alrea.dy purchased for buil~lin.l!;. [-lap is attached. Tap'ether, the Richmehd CreeJ~ ?'arms and ether propased developr.ent will result in aver 150 buildinE units. ':Jildlife Habitat and Pratectian The )'iarthern partaf the Cree!,--n/;;, 11. \'!., and ii. has a natural wilderness with 'c- two, houses. This area is Gtill undevelaped as is certain partG af the ~authern , end. Countless migrating birds, ::,;cese, ducks and resident birds rest, feed, and breed. There is protectian all year round as they seck refjJge--warblers, thrushes, owls, loons, .:;eese. There are l, ,bu.,f}l.e heads, mallards, swans I blue herons and many other species ,'/ho seck. protection in the marshes, fauna, and veAetatic of the crJ: c1-:. ~ Pn..;e 2 v. i",iarston-\i/ater,Land \'.Iildlife Protectic Group Proposal Land AC~sition (Can't.) . Tidal \1etlands undisturbed as nOVI there is very limited boating. These lands act as a protective buffer for wildlife. Birds feed and breed a viewing as they Goar Over the creek looking for fish, clams, and other types of food. In addition, in certain areas of the ndjacent we.tlands there are spots for undisturbed cla!nin~ for both fishermen and the public. Vulnerability The North Shore of Eastern 1..00,:: IsIFtnd is experiencing a land speculators explosion and the surrounding p.rea of' Hichinontl CreeJ<.: is one such area. This land is in the hands of out of town speculator>; \"ho not only have >;uix..i tted They provide mall with ,tJroposals for uellse housing but are hi-tying land for speculation. One such speculator has already illegally bulldozed the land practical.),' in the tidal wetlands. Public Access This project could increase another public access by providing foot trails wh"'re 'in th'J future Richmond Creek Farms Associates propose to build. The foottrail could lead to Wells Hoad. The public then could view the unique character of the creel, at the northern end as an exa.mple of special natural bcauty--one of its kind in the region and possibly in the ;}ortheast. It combines tidal wetlands, trees, fauna, vegetative covcrina, (mini pine barrens) surrounding farmland and fields and is a waterway to the greater bay for fisher;"en 'Ult, the puhlic. The public could Viel'l migrntin:J birds anl1 see .the many >tater birds feecline. preenir Si,timmin;3 rand di v~ng. with two houses. It is still unJeveloped. l'he i'forth.,fl'ld of the creek has a primitive wilderness Vulnerability Proposed bUildin" on the undeveloped land, regardless of whether or not it conforms with the-:1ihtiquated buildin~ code and zoning, of the town will resul t in increased pollution and contamination of the acquifer and creek water which >till eventually affect the wildlife, claming and fishin;;; and the public right to their <.I:joyment. Trarli tional j'Hgrating Haute V/interinr( Hubi t })urin,~.:~ the sprin:-; at1d autur;Jll countless birds !nay be viewed ;nir~ratin~!: and flYing down to feeel and rest for their lon!.l journey South or North. They escape to the I'forth end, the N/':I, :lnrl ;.r/E ~nd.; of the cY".z-c!: where they are relatively undisturbed. During the cold "~tinter all types of water birds ~,' .t., may be viewed '.'estin::; and feecline: 8.t the undevelo;Jecl ')art of thoz creei:. Pa:~~e 3 '!. !:arston ".'ater. Land. I.:ilcllife ?rotp.ction Gr " . . Proposal--Land ilCq,lisi tion (Con' t) VUlnerability Proposed development >/ill increase manmade >Jastes and chemicals. which will j added. disturb the wintering habitat. Furthermore, domestic animals \'Iill be the creek. Cats and dogs can be seen running lose on the developed part of The Aquifer One of the most important aspect of the badly conceived proposed Hichmond Creek Farm.s Project is the i!i1pnct: of' 4.2 households on the aquifer. The acquifer of the Riclimond Creek Farms development area has already been af:fected U~:' :farm chemicals. permit. The developer is seekin,c!, a link to a public water system. The Departlnent of Health has not issued a HONover, the p~"ivate ".,;e11s on t1811s Hoad ,gnd Indian Heck will he affected -to a public "Jater system. by vr,ste runof:~-'d- storm l"uno:cr fr'o:.l th3 '10;,188 a8 the~' cannot be connected SUPPLY PLAN, SUFFOLK CO~:.~. This ...eport \Vas prepared by the ,SR.; l';orthcast Engineers, P. C. 88 Sunnyaide lJlvd., Plainview, u. Y., ;"'Iarch 1933 Belov! j,G n quote from the NOHTH FOHK '..iflTEH &vid jfarris. j';i.D.ILP.H. COl1lmiGs:L~, Herbert '~'J. Davids, at the Jirection of Peter F. Cohalal;l, - Suffolk County Executive, --- DiviSionpof Environmental Health. ~Il'iater supply problems on the i'iorth Fork of' Lons Island are severe. ShallOl. thin ~~::~ctor,._ groundwater aquifers arc extensivcl,y impacted by contamination from agricu! tural chcli1icals J prima.rily nitrates and pcs"l:;icides and are threatened by salt i'later intrusion from overpUntpin~r. Increasin;; pressures for devclop;nent which '-lill result in accelerntcd population ~~roHth will further stress the water supply aquifers The study has dcmorYstrated conclusively th<'l.t 11U!:1erOtl3 technical B.nd financiFll difficul ties are encountered "~then atte",pting to provide potable I'rater to the residents of the North For)~. Preventive meaStlre~ to :niniJ.lizc or elir:inate ndJi tional :;rol:ndwater cont~-lJilin.:.:d:ion J:lllst l-:c iuplcmcnted .::.ica~ures should be tal':cn iir,rlicdiatel.>f to uPbracle th~~ iA3rt'or:nance and rcliabili t:;l of the sy~tei:1 aru~ to aU"_;l'o1C:1t its Source of 3u~jpl;,-'. . . . . . . .~certain areas lilay be contlected to public '.;"teI'.... . .however ;;nttituclo, Li ttlc Iio,~ rieck, EH8t CutC.lO,cUC. _~:.!~ci'. i.:e~.': ~uffoll{ and InCliun ;\Iec!~--i t iG not ecollO;Tlicall:,' fee.sibl.~ to provide public we:car supply 8Y~3ter;l.s. '1'he8e arens should continU\~ to utilize individual home wells. '. Pase 4 v. {.,urston--'.vater, Land, ;']ildlife Protection Group " . . Proposal--Land Acquisition (Con't.) , Therefore, existing residences and homes presentlJT existing on the creek eventually will be affected by presently proposed developr.1ent and all other future development. These horacG cannot be connected to a public '.'later system and the pOllution caused u::,' increa.sed housing ~,till affect the existing ''1ells even thOU.I.~h the n8\-/ houGin.:,~ of the developers I projects may be connected with public water.. Therefore, the problems have to be solved now. Endan~ered Species On the South end of the creel: are the rare endan&ered species--the tern-- the comr"on, t Ie least, and the roseate. The pipill,; plover h28 also been seen. (Environmental si,;..;ns have been placed at strate2ic points.) These . developers'" projects. rare endangered species will be affected by presently proposed and future housin,<:; if; built there will most likely be an increase in r.1otor bOf.\ts. Furthermo the parent birds USe the creek and hay for feeding their YOl:11,:-;. These birds breed on the creek and bay side, and If dense there will be increased pollution with storm runOff. household, and human waste. There will be eventual GGopac;e into the crock which '.'fill affectl the terns on the South end of the cree!.:. Vulnerahility Tho terns will not surviv..c=. increased encroachment. On the n., N/E. ,~~ N/W sides 01' the cree]: there are fewer than 5 houses in the undeveloped PD.!""!::. The probability .for future development is wi thin one to two years. Pa,:e 5 v. .I!ar8ton--'1:;:~tcr, Lend, i'Jildlife Protection Group .~~ .~" ,., .. ~ ,; ! '. t. . .' ~- - - '1 ' ~ , ~'.:. ..... ; ~ .-~- \ ..... '.'~ .... \ . ~.~/ '\;". /.~~,. \,. ,,) ~--/--'" - . \',_..::\\., ',. \. ~,~. ~;'~ '--to', r:,;, \. \ ,. \~~.:..., " '; ",.b.ill<. ('$~ j \ . \ '~." ::,,-,;~..;~-;---:-':'\t.. t, ~ \~'1fis'~ \.111 '.(;-., .., "_--_~. \. '. '\ tv. ~ '.AI.... /' ,. ", ..- -- \ ~..\ I~ (;t.. .. .~:,.{~..: ~"'-"'-'fI~\"\' \,.,~ \y~.t,/...._,r", . .......-- _ \\ ,.... .:.^~-:'.r . . "", \ .,..... ......."" \\ \ ,\: \ :'V\...... l.- ~ \~ \\ . "',\. \ ~____:........~... \ .". .\.':" ;.\.....' ." ....1\' \\ ...... /", "',.,~' _\ ...." '.',-, _-----:r.::....~-(, ,,' \" \. "",./\ \ /(' 17... -.,...., ..' . ........ '--.----r..-~--:-,\ . \"" ";'. \' 'I. ';'-',-". ;,' ..,.... .-'-.........,;..,;-.1'- "j'---'-'-"""-' , . ,\ "~' .::.',' . "... _/'.. " . :") " ,. S;~',' " . i - ./ \ ,.' ,'. . \ \' . r " . 'II . <)." V- 'I' :. I..". \'c \\ (".j. \ .\\~.: "/,../: '. ....<N1 iJ": ';;~:;T. ~"~ , L.;'--- ~.'".!\ ..~ ~ -...- I ' . \ . "\ . . \ \ " ~'.' _:5 ~.. \' 'c, \'. . \ \ \\ \ ";::..-' ~,./- C, e:( \ i ,;'. \ " 'y,.--" / .' t? y- e I . .. ..... \ \ " I . .-,,.-:..~ I fl . . :. '-l ",~. \ '~:,. \'.' '\. \:;.J) /;' ~ I!/ ; ; "' '~ '/\" \,\/;/ '-v // ,? I S ~,t ~I}",t .- , \ \ '\ "r" ./l 0/ (.J-:\/j vI . < I' \ Y /. i - r) IV f. Ci } ! \, .._-V~---..\ . . . f / ( ~'p..)VI'C. . : : ., y' "' ~' V;:. ."..A, " .' .r<, 'Ct -:;::;r: ;....' ~ ....:;:" .'~--'(re' . \~' .//;',. . r;>e '^ , , .;/..... ~<'\ f t ",e. \01 . ,.\ '~'. \/"v ,~ . <:\<- . , .':' ~. (/{\\"\.? 'j...,,';1 ,/<f not'. \ __. ,~. .y../",f' _-. \ '....., y"I.V\'~ .-.- \\-_.~: .,., "\';:' .:;.:,:;~-::,,;:::_...<.:.,, ". . ~.'- _._.I&';";' " .. . 0, _""7(;-- ",- \ .,,' \- ~ ~", . \'\~"">';Cf~\ 0, '0 ~ .... r. I- 1" ~.... ~ . '(. -~tf" '- \ -. .,. -'\''''''0 " "_ --. ~'iJ , --:~ \ --'".r- -Jf' '~. ';,~' "I, ,v. :' ,,~.~~~;.r"'-J'i> ,,,:.' - ---",,_~_' 0 III ''':'', , - ,.. II 'It--:-''--- : I ~ ' . " / --r"- J.... .___, _ \J., .... . --..,.> . .. - '. --; .. . ,./.. ,'- --,:0..---:;;::;:',,) D" '/ ,,'. . --'_- vv/ (' . . ,,"\,;' ./ '.... ~., I ,--' "... !C".o ... " ,. . ~ ", =-~...,.tT~)' '.>' i' . ...< . ':. ~--=:: .. I I .' ',. '/ "f~-- ,;;;). '-. I / /"", v \ ~:: '- . .~' . ". . ' ' // y//~ \-., ;: /01/,j.~5'_ ~"-".'I'I //' .'~. , \~_'::i'/' "'...--- . ~......- ~.... . I~" ...s ...~ . ""\ . "/' ,/ y/'-(~'" / ;~;~ ; /'''.../~" l' .,,;;' ,{."'.//.'oD, f" 'f ,,~ ~ 0 ~;t/.,,, cJ \ . Y' ~ j.. \..... l? ;: .~ \1-/" -.- A....... ~: ,t:. .- o. r. J' ,.. \, '> ..~ ~- ". _--':~ ~ )..-;,r'" , , . ~ : N ;;1' d : -/ ' -I I i J-/j~~ I ~~d( I "'......i g.'n. '" . ~. , I . I I , . I : i , :"'-1, I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I ! j ....1 I . ~ I i..-- (lI (I; .' G..\..' ~. -' - :!,,'. " , ~ ->::- IJ f , " -< " . z t) ~ , . .~ahr, ~tZ1td., tJltlifi 1't'dl<<lUm Gi~lfP vy ~ -;?"# ~POB /5'1, PECONIC, L. 1., N.Y. 11958- 7/ --;/bp/'~ ?t -, ( ~ -. =-:")....--:"-<"' " Jr /, ..____:7 _.., ~ ;h'" April 1, 1988 Supervisor Members of Town Hall, Southhold, Francis J. Murphy Southhold Town Board Main Street New York 11971 and Honorable Members of the Southhold Town Board - Greetings! Re: Richmond Creek Associates Proposal for housing project in Peconic bordering on Richmond Creek There is a wealth of correspondence regarding the above mentioned organization in the Planning Board Office. We are opposed to this project and the pending water permit. There have been many illegalities in connection with this proposed project. Enforcement of environmental concerns in the future cannot be monitored because of lack of enforcement agents. We understand that a permit may be issued so that this project may be able to obtain water from a well. If the permit is obtained, this will still leave the residents of Indian Neck Lane subject to further contamination and pollution of their aquifer from the run-off and sewage from this project. The Suffolk Water Report has stated that Indian Neck area and Hog Neck area cannot be connected to any water supply and must rely on their own wells. We have submitted the attached proposal to the State and have received favorable answers from Stony Brook, among others. Is it possible for the town to purchase land closely surrounding Richmond Creek, one of the last creeks that is still unpolluted? Hoping to hear from you soon, Very truly yours, '- k:it:'?~ l?~ /Jla.4'W~,~ Vilma Louise Marston I"" . President cc: Planning Board Board of Trustees Franklin Bear, Water "'-:'7 Commit tee . . ' . . 19t16 ENVrnON",ENTAL QUALITY :JOI\lJ I\Cl' - TITLE 7 - LAnD ACQUI~ITH!!~_ PHOPOSAL: To evaluate nncl obtain sl1rrQlJ.nciil1C' ItQd:l.l..._ljp.r..ttleM.t.._.<lmL-_ Northwest entIs of land antI portions of surrounding land located at Hichmoncl Cree", Pecollic, Long Island for preservation purposes SulTrni ttcd by Vilma Louise Harstont President Water, Land, Wildl.ife :Protectlon GrouT' POD 159 Peconic,L.I., N.Y. 11058 ".. . . !k; Hichman" Creek and a eved shellfish a d uncan amlna e East End. surrounding Land, creek anr one 0 Scen~c creeK~ Peconic, L.I., N.Y. 11958 e as. remaJ.I1H1fs unpo u cd ) rl. i::>h allcr-m::1mH.lI~ UII Lhe ~ecoll1mended: To ronose that Richmond Creek and it::; surrounding tidal wetlands and lena be preserved as an ecolO'::'.1ically signif'icant area which 18 fragile ana sensitlve Proposal: '1'0 evaluate and obtain ends and portion of preservation purposes. North East, and Northwest surroun In~~ ana or The objective of Title 7 will be realized by making the above land acquisition part of the State Project. This sensitive and fragile area has characteristics which fulfills several criteria. As a result of the acquisi tion and preservation ~nhancement and improvement of enviromentally;._ sensitive lands will result as follows: 1. Scenic beauty (mixture of marshland, pines, tidal wetlands, beautiful configuration of land surrounding the creek, interesting patterns of' tidal wetlands and other vegetatior~ 2. Unique character, special natural beauty 3. 'l'icial wetlands, marshes, buffer area 5. Wildlife habitat 6. Restoring and preserving present acquifer for local wells in the immediate neighborhood (,Jells Road and Indian Neck Lane) 7. Pre"ervation of the traditional migrating route and habitat--feeding and breeding grounds for many types of water bircls--ducks, geese, herons, lesser terns--and ~or1,:.; bircis plus rl~Gi.ch~nt bird,':) 8. r.-tail1tain the protective area for winterins birds 9. Richmond Creek r:-evn-a-lY\J, certifred-aPI"rovcd for shellfish for fishermen and rocreational pur1Jo~GS 9. Offer protection for endangered species the tern--common, least, and roseate at the South end of the creek. J\lso, the pipin,: plover has been seen making a comeback. Pa"e 1 V .l'~arston-\,.Iater, Land, ~'jildlif'c Protection ( . . ~roR?~~: Land-ACquisibon (Con't) 10. Contributes to tha .public enjoymant and appreciation of scanic and recreational resources. 11. Local groUnd\',ater protection Scenic Beauty The proposed land acquisition project "lould continue to enhance the public enjoyment as to the vie'lJing of exceptiona.l scenic beauty. Pr"3sently t there is a puhlic access for rowooats ~n('l C2.nODS t cle.:nin'~1 collectin~:~ mussels, aDd fishing; thus, p",;,liu ~njoyment will be preserved. Proposals to increase private condos will contribute to the pollution and contamination of the creek "Jater, exiGting wells, anti surround" in:.: \.retlan.ds. jiiussels and clams and I:'ther fish will be affected negatively a:; presently is the case on other east~~~ creeks. Vulnerabili ty At the pre:;ent time, Richmond Creek Farms Associates have proposed a condo (N/E of cre>' project (cluster concept of approx. 42 houses 11 houses on creek) approx 46.6 acrefis'l (H.E.' . On the Nil}; part of the creek. j,;ooring Construction has divided portions of land lX acreas in the area of the min.... pines. At th" ri/'.~ end of the creel, and fJxtrclIle I'/E there are major subdivision of property for sale and some acre~:;c already purchased for buihling. [,lap is ~.ttachet1. TOflether, the Richmond CreeJ~ ?arnc; and other proposed developrr.ent l'Iill result in over 150 buildinG units. ':Iildlife Habitat and Protection -----The J":orthern partof the Crcak--nl:, ~L\'!. t and j-.i. has a natural \>lilc1ernes3 \.;ith end. Countless migrating birds, cieese, ducks ~:; certain parts of the southern , and resident birds rest, feed, t\o,,'O houses. This area is still undeveloped as and breed. There is protection all year round as they seel, refjJge--'.<arblers, thru~hes, OV/1s, loons, [;eese. There are 1\ .bu.,f.f:l~heads, mallards, swans, blue herons nnd many other upecic~ \'1110 seck. protection in the marshes I fauna, and ve~etati .of the cr~ ek. -= Pc.~e 2 v. i;;arston-'I.Jater,Lan~ \'.'ildlife Protect; ~ Group -t. ACqU1S.l ~Ol1 (Can't.) . Proposal Land Tidal \'Jetlands These lands act as a protective buffer for wildlife. Birds feed and breed undisturbed as now there is very limited boating. They provide ma.n with types of food. a vie\'tinz as they Goal' over the creel; lookinG for fiGh, clams. an.d other are srots for undisturbed cl~nin~ for both fisher~en and the public. Vulnerability The North Shore of Eastern Lon,:; Ioland in experiencin;] a land speculators e}~plosion and the surroundinG p.ren of' Hich;nonll Creck is aile such area. This land is in the hands of out of tO'1I1 speculators \';110 not only have suix.1i tted In addition, in certain areas of the adjacent wetlands there ~roposal~ .for uense housiu:i:;: but arc buying land for speculation. One such speculator has already illegally bulldozed the land practical:V in the tidal wetlands. Public Access This project could increase another public access by providing foot trails wh~re 'in th'1 future Hichmond Creek Farms Associates propose to build. The foottrail could lead to \'fells Hoad. The public then could view the unique character of the creel; at the northern end as an example of special natural beauty--one of its I:ind in the relJion and possibly in the :Iortheast. It combines tidal wetlands, trees, fauna, ve.';etative coverinf" (mini pine barrens) sUrrounding farmland and fields and i3 a waterway to the ~reater bay for f'isher:71en 3.n(i. the public. The public could view migrntinz hirds anu see the many water birds feeding. preenir swimmin,3. and diving. 'l'he Hortb..tiJd of the; Creek has a prili11 tive \'lilderness with two houses. It is still unueveloped. Vulnerability Proposed buildin~ on the undeveloped land, regardless of whether or not it conforms with the antiquated buildin~ code and zoning, of the town will resul t in increased pollution and rontamination of the acquifer and creek water which will eventually affect the wildlife, elaming and fiShing and the public right to their <.I:jo.l'ment. 'l'rarli tional j.:;igratinr, Houte \;/intcrin~1, Habi t ,= ))urin,:::~ the sprin:: and autur;1I1 countless birds may be viewed ;nir~ratin~1; and flyinG down to feed and rest for their long journey South or North. They escape to the r'!orth end, the Nl~'!, n.nd ;'!/f. ~nd,; of the ct".rcl: where they are relatively undisturbed. During tlte cold '.'!intcr al~.,,-.types of' '.';a.ter birds r;:ay be vie'JIcct "'estin::; and fcedin~ c.t the undevelo,ed part of the crecl~. Pa;\e 3 V.I:arston \'1ater I Lnnc1,I':ildlife i'l'otnction G . . Proposal--l..anc..l l\Cq:"lisi tion (Con I t) j Vulnerability Propo~ed development \Otil! increase manmadc \,.oiastes and chemicals.which will disturb the wintering habitat. Furthermorc. domestic animals \'Ii11 be added. Cats and dogs can be seen running lose on the developed part of' the creek. The Aquifer One of the most important aspect of the badly conceived proposed Ilichmond Creek Farms Project i3 the impact of 42 households on the aquifer. The "equifer of the Richmond Creel, Farms development area has already heen affected 5.'.! :farm chemicals. The Department of l-!eal th has not issued a permit. Tho developer io seekilV"!, a link to a public \'later system. HO\'lever. the p~"ivate "!ells on \';"n115 Head r.lnd Indian Heck will he affected hy t'1-"13t'3 runof 2'0.. storiJl l""lli1o:.T fro:" the .10;;)08 as tbc:r cannot be connected "1;0 a public ~'!atcr system. Be 1m', is n quote frolll the ,'iOIlTi1 FOl1i( '..l^TEIl SUPPLY PLAN. :;UFFOLK CO\li,:TY ,1";' Y. This r1?p ort WaS prepared by the ,Ell:': J';orthcast En,!'~ineers, P. C. 36 SunnY[iidt-} lJlvcl., Plainview. H. Y., ;":iarch 1963 David darris. ;.1. D. H. P. H. Commissioner, Herbert ~'J. Davids, at the tlirection or Peter F. Cohalal;l, - .~uf'fol!-\ County Executive, - pi iriSionr'of Environmental Heal t!l. /H'iater supply problems on the North Fork of Long Island arc severe. Shallow thin Director, groundlt'atcr aquifers are extensi vcl,y impacted by contamination from agricultural chemicals, prir;larily n1 trates and pesticides and are threatened by salt i'Jater intrusion from overpumpin~r. Increasin_~~ pressures for development which h"ill resul t in accelerated population :~ro\'lth will :further stress the \'later supply aquifers The study has demor"lstrated conclusively that nW:1erOU3 technical a.nd financial c1ifficul tie3 are el1eountered v!hcn a'ttc"1[.otil1.c~ to provide potable vrater to the residents of the r'!ortl1 ForI,,:. Preventive neasures to :niniLlizG or elininate nd::1i tional ;~rol~nd\'Jater contamination J:lust be ii.1plerncnted. i'!~a5ures should be taken i;r:mcdiatcly to up~rade tb~ i..erfor:nance and rc liabili t~t of the syster.1 2.f1(~ to aU;-.~lilcnt its source of 3uppl.y. . . . . . . .:certain areas may be connected to public "':::':7' w<::.ter..... .ho','/over ;.inttituc::k, Little I-io~~ j'ieck, East Cutcho.,~uc, ?leets J;eci:, j.!C\',' ~uffollc and Inciian ~\Jec!;--i t 13 not ccollo;'aically feasibl,~ to provide public "'ia'(;Cr ~ul':'i-'ly ~Y~.itC'r.1S. 'l'hesc areas should continu~ to utilize in.dividual home wells. '" Pa.l;e ,,~ v. 1;;ar~tolj-_l.\JF.\tcr. I.and r '~)iJ.dlirCJ Protoction Croup . . Proposal--Land Acquisition (Con't.) Therefore, existing residences and homes presentlJ' e;-:isting on the creek eventually will be affected by presently proposed development and all other future development. These hOj,wG cannot be connected to a public \'!ater system and the pOllution caused uy increased housing ~'/ill afrect the existina wells even thouiih the new hOLl3in~ of the developers' projects may be connected with public water; Therefore, the problems have to be 30lved now. Endan;~ered Species On the South end of the creel, ;ore the rare endangered species--the tern-- the comrllon, tie least, and tbc roseate. The pipiIl";-; plover hC'.s also bef1n seen. e Environlncntal si,;.:;ns have been placed at strate~ic points.) These rare endangered species will be affected by presently proposed and future . developers J" projects. Thene birds breed on the creek and bay side, al1d the parent birds USe the crGc~{ and bay for feeding their youn,:;. If dense housin,S: is built there will most likely he an increase in filotor boats. Furthermo; there will be increased pollution with storm runOff, household, and hur,1an waste. l'hcr~ \'Iill be r=ventual Gecpa,~;8 into the creG}< \I:hich '.'iill ?ffcctl the terns on tll'3 South end of the crcc!~. Vulnerahility Tho terns 1:till not surviv.c;: increased encroachment. On the if., N/E., & N/W Gides oi' the creel~ there are fewe~ than 5 houses in the undeveloped part. The probability for future development i" within one to two years. "'-::'7 Pni=:e 5 v. rrarfJtOI1--~!:ntcl"'. Land. Wildlife Protection Group . . ~; .---.-< I ',.:~.', '-;' \ 'i < ' -- ,., , \ , ,.>- '~; -- \ o. \ ." ..- ~~ ~---- \o.'~"~~'!"''':'~~:~'''~~~~: ~ ,'" ."", \ 0_" ~.'\ 0' ". ""b'o \ '....e --- ;: '\' ':'. ......""'\, \. 0 t ~ \-s"lJ; . L- .liI. .- (-,.:) \'. Or ~"....- ;..... (' It :.. ,;V ...:... il...... , " ,...;.."0",\,, "Vt{l"" ",.:\'" f "'. -- ~ ~-y \ , . \ r"" lJt!:.. .t'1', :. ''''''- " ............,<'< \ ' " ; ':/,,-, . ~ '\ ' /~ ',.-'X \'.,;/ :,pv!(','/., t'\. II / ,<:. - , --, ... .'. ,~ t. '" . V,., "\"" ~''''' ,...J .................., ' \;?\.~ \, ,./. .---l~;_,'\....t . ~;-',' ". ......... ..... \ \ .,. .:... : \ :/( 1>,-.-",,"" ". ' "\" . .... .. \\" I ". " . .. e' -(', . I "~'\ \ -:::::::l,i::i< ',', \.. i\ "'I ';--' ':'!~:-1 0, '.. "'" - . '-'''~:'''-::;::::--~_:::'' ;,~;. V' .. ~ \ ~\:'t ~~-;;.: :. "<NIl:',:::::: -F---'; I : 0 ~ \ ::",i.. '.: .: \'!'" : ',- ......-. i!.,Y.. V I '. :-- L-" " 'o.~, :1.\ \ '}J' ;,' '/~~' r~ ~ 1\ '; \ \ \ \, k-,C'/ ~t.) . '\.. ...:..,\ \ '. \.' -:-:. ,S/(I' \ ;.. \ ... '-,'\ \ .~-.-'-./ . '/.. h'e:.---, .,\ : '-l' '" " \\' ,0"\;'1 ,fi/(l ~vi cf ;;. \ j ,. . ~( ~y(;: ;: \ --\,f . i 0<"",,:'" ~ >- .,.f.~,/ /._____". ./l~~~~.. ~I '-", I I/~>\';; ~. \ (ltc\), "" nc-r.". ,'.::;;~, . (' ~ '''d; /f ."-,~ I . , ' 0 \,\'e.,~" . /"' :'l' :'< ' . ' : . ~.'\ \ I .. (I' / i' . ~ ':."\ , . C'...---./" I""-,~" ,- \ :'. - It;,- ",~,' I "" . ~-c--'.. 0 ;~\;',,'":'.~ i..- I' :"'" \.. . .\-- ,. .'. '. ."......~._..< 0.. '. . Q) I' i' .', ",.. "- \ '. ~ ... .~ " ... .. . ';,' . oJ. . Q/ ';'" ;';'-"-"" "~' Of. ~\ .,'C c'\.'~':,: 'i;- .~ 1- -- .. to _ ~'.v ~ " . - ...:.......-:Q . 'V \ ,,' . .> . " i'~ r- . ~~ r ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~. . l ~. ~.'.- 11\ ,,-.... 0 III . ._----m-;;1.-:, _.~........- : '/._ .',. -, "_II, =. '~... . "..../. --r~ .u--.. _)' .~ ..; y '" ~ (#Il' . ' '/". . '. .. - /_. // <or " /. t-o: "'--4'; "" / :?".- ,." - "/. '", ' ,';,' /' .~ ~ .',. ,/ ,~.';.. /" ... ~:. /. ,,/ ';...... - -~ .' '. ..;..... -,./ //' ~:- ./ ~ '-'~~, '. 'fl, : '.. ",.. . ',. " . /' ,//'v j. ~. /./kj; I , "/'\k . "., ..-: \'~ _v' ';:/;:~~T ,~ ~~~ :r / e \ .",.' ..--/ . \-/.. J:. <.. -- ........ "!t "--., I I ~ I . I . , , . " I . I ',' . i I t I i I I . . COo " I "" I I " I I I I , i j I I I I , I ';- ..., , . I ~- 1 ~LI ~:::~'I .. ":. :-. . - ~. ., -.,. . -~ .... .:: <:21 .,. '. ~ VI '" . -, r;: I -:.., .- -,.. .. ~: r.: " I . . . ~., V ~ (\"'- . \.L...J ..'V .',.., . ~ l I ~ '. z o. t.... ;. "I- 0 ;"/ ~ 'II 'I J1 ,:. .."~ ~"-" '" '\(,/ :jJ "(jf " (i "~ ~, e ~- , . . .. . . . The Incorporated Long Island ChClnter_ N:~~~!~~:::~~~n lru~f~ti; i]1]f,l. ~ 516-765-5577 " L '69J7 "I. U l I l.......... J June 14, 1987 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Planner 'Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11091 Dear Sir; We have been made aware of a plan to subdivide Richmond Creek Farms, Town of Southold, Main Road opposite Depot Lane, Peconic, Long Island, bordering on Richmond Creek. We would like to comment on the above plan. On Long Island's North Fork, all land which is by or near a body of water (creek, pond, seasonal run-off, etc) is considered archaeological sensitive. We understand that Indian material has been recovered from this site and that bulldozing has been done (despite a violation having been issued for same). We strongly encourage you to re-think approval for this subdivision. Long Island's Indian heritage is precious to all and should not be destroyed. Yours truly, Walter Smith, President Ellen Barcel, Member, Board of Trustees cc Southold Town Supervisor Murphy v. M. Marston, Wa:ter, Land, Wildlife Protection Group ., L/'( I"" /"'~ "'l,./V'rV "'-- Fi:J__._... . . I;;:) IT" ,-::~;~. '~--"-1! Mrs. Dorothy Lueckoff ':""",1'- h f',"":;;,\ ,. L""'......~ "- '" ~ll; PO Box 211, Sprinf Lane i Ii) .---- ----: ; l Peconic, ;~.Y. 11958 jiT:. .;In 15 :S8S Ul u ~L-... ,~ Ju yTIDif /rJL9B6:CUTriCl.o Supervisor F.J. Murphy Southol<< Town Hall Main Rei. Southold, N.Y. DeRr Sir; I regret th~lt I have wRi ted so long to eXllress my concern re- garding the proposal of the Developers Marina on Hichmond Creek. We have been year-round residents in Peconic on Hichmond Creek for the past 16 ye'l.rs. Our "EDEN" with 220' of w'l.terfront on this n'l.tural undisturbed wat"rfr')nt we sh,,-re with the native }'lora &: Fauna, waterbirds, shellfish, fish and eels, muskrats and friends, etc. We discover we must be labeled in toliays vernacular, "Environ- mentalists". Our AMerican Indian likely never h,,-<< a word in their tongue to equal it as they knew instinctivly that ~l'tn &: Nature must live in harmony. A balance of each giving to the other. Therefore, what we took for granted all these yeqrs must now be defendeli. It and they c'tnnot defend themselves: We must t'tke sides and some ~ust becone the KEEPERS. Those who w~h to destroy this natur'tl environment are only looking to profits. Over these many years there has been very little use of the creek by Motoraoats 'tn. the beds of mussels prove it. The proposed dre<<cing 'tn<< Marina will destroy one of the last clean, natur,,-l breeding '''aterways for all the species of the "etl'mas we 'ire blessed with on the East End. Ple'tse consider becoming a "Keeper" of an irrepl"-ceable wRter- way that will continue to Five to the future SOllie of the quality we all come to the East End f~ . Yours truly, r-Jrs. #A ~,-..'" '~ .;;:;-:J ~ ~ --':' ~ ,. . . ''\~ fIImr, ZIRId, tJiUtlift 1'~"l<<lUw GrlnJjJ r- ~\.^:-<-.~ 3t I"" /, Honorable Francis J. ~urphy & To'm Council ~e'1lbers T01m Hall Southold, L.I., N.Y. 11971 POB 1~1, PECONIC, L. I., N.Y. 11958-t~~4' fQlr;;: (C pi" P~::?RGf I\U~r .Rl14~ lml U"l ,J!J I ' ~J c.~ c::-' r-ucLO TO'f~I' r .~t..iu I.. . . .July 14, 1986 Re: Richmond Cree)< Far'118 Rich'11ond Associates Project on Richmond Cree]<, ?econic L.r., N.Y. Honorable :',urllhy & Council Nenbers: 11e oppose the proposed project in its present state as there will be serious detrimental effect on the environment. 1. ::1ichmond Creek is certified for cOllmercial fishinG and its wetlands provide breeding Grounds, protection, and food for uniq~e Hater birds. 2. There must be strict covenants and restrictions 8.c,;ainst enlarging the narrmr section of the cree!< where the vrooose.i 11 hOllses are to be built as this area provides shelter and"food for '11i~ratin~ birds. In fact, there should be fewer houses 2 to J acres per house on the creek side as 1 Bcre is overdevelopnent and Hill have a negative envioron'11ental i'1lpact on birds, fish, C1811S, and other wildlife. J. There '11ust be strict covenants and restrictions th3.t a Marina 'viII not be bull t. 4. There must not be expansion near the 1Jetlands at the enn of "ells Road for recreational boats. 5. The hiGh density of homes ,viII eventually affect the ground Hater and the cree]<--r]rainage, stor'1ls, and other rU.!'loff 1'ill certainly affect the creek. In addition, to date, there has not been Dept of Health water appro~al because of soil conditions. 6. The entrance of the cree)< into the ba;)' is very rectrictin:; the exc.hanGe of Haters in the creeic creek could be polluted very easily. narro~; therefore For this reason the '/ ( "recial :';ote: I visited the Army 'Corps of Sn:;ineers, i~YC, 1vhich has ~ot ~PFrove~ any plnns Inclu~in3 8 !1arlna as ~~as sllbmlttel by 3ichnond .l'~88ociate~J. There is Q ':;reat cor..cern by the Co~ps for t~e Hetlands and for t~e creeJ<. Orig. r'i"':')~ -,"y.) ~~ I',. ~Mt'l' :;;~:;~~ 'Ii 1 np' Toui"~ .:~~..ton :l"'H'i~ent ... - '.':'; _.--....;., , ..... _.->l.~ent\ j\'~l. c-:~c File t: v ,~ --:7kr~ \ ,- , . . " Supervisor Francis J. Murphy and Members of Southold Town Board Town Hall - Main street Southold, New York 11971 . July 14, 1986 Honorable Membersof the Southo1d Town Board - Greetings! Regarding the Richmond Creek Associates Plan which will be voted on this evening, This is an urgent appeal to you to disapprove the plan of Richmond Creek Associates for housing and a marina to be developed on Wells Road, Peconic, N.Y. The Creek (Richmond Creek), at its north-west end is very narrow and it is heavily fringedwith pre~ious wetlands. Housing in large numbers would destroy these wetlands...... Densit~ of houses near the Creek and houses on the Creek can Cause water po1ution as we know it to have happened on other Creeks in Southold Town. A boat slip or marina of proportions such as indicatedin this particular plan would pollute the waters, destroying the breeding and feeding grounds of the abundant and sometimes rare wild life which abounds on this Creek. It is also possible that swampland would emerge such as has happened in parts of New Jersey. Please, pleasesave one of the finest Creeks in the east end by voting NO on this issue of density of housing and the marina. Thank .you. L / / / ! L.~-~ / / . . } --.-/ ). ./ // /"',., Il'; Ll!G1,~UL T~ 2e<fl ~--! , . ~r-..L ~ 12~ -4JV r7 - -~,.....- /';T I L-f~,,,- ~( <:.\~ "Jvv\ /' ,J ~~il-' _ b~( J- ~y n~...,,"Z- e. ~v~'- (lr.dA :/a.~:t. 7 ~ , j> . . . . .. Annette Knoblock P.O. Box 127 Peconic, New York 11958 (516) 734-6609 July 14, 1986 Supervisor Frank J. Hurphy Members of Southold Town Board Main Street Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Honorable Members of the Southold Town Board Gre et ings! Before you vote on the proposed development plan of the gichmond Creek Associates, may I enter my plea: I have been a resident and taXpayer of Southold Town for 37 years: 30 years as a part-time, "holiday" resident and 7 years Full-time. ,Vhen I bought my cottage on Richmond Creek in 1949 I had a fine beach and could swim in the Creek off my own private beach. I chose to sacrifice this and let the wetlands take over, to preserve mY.little nart of this beautiful inland body of water -- 1;n~s was long be ore any J.aws were passed requ~ring preservation of wetlands. Now I know people have a right to build houses but not at the riskof destroying the fragile beauty of our Creeks and polluting the waters -- no one has this right. This rare land that we have in the east end is special and we do not want it to end up like the Hamptons or Middle Island or Commack, do we?? My plea is to vote no on this development and its marina because it will affect the wetlands and the water and have a terrible impact on the wildlife waich, after all, is an important part of tre charm and beauty of Southold Town. ~~~~ ;..aa,.:J" ~ )~4 - ?~ .~7~ ~ ?id/~ ~f<id'~r~ ; r /7'/1, ~7- ~~r- . . - filmy, ZIZH4., tJi141ift ~-- 1'r4l<<lim (;r4IJ.p. ~, 1 t~ f"', tf.,..-....'..---..M...........,_'" , POB 1~1, PECONIC, L. 1., N.Y. 11958:-iq1it.!.,~:.~~L::~>; '7~~i " 1:' "Ll..' !" ,','" ;!ft.V, j ~,.. IJLL i '~ ......,;-,~~--'-...,-..."".-.-"""'- ,,~"~ J ,~ Jv'.;ni (;~ .'"..'C{Jfh(,;LOf I' ton k ~o , ~~ . .~..-;o /~ In-,,h~ / , ~ ~. 4,_' I.':~ ' J. ./i7 -' ......., -:- ~ 1iI1Ibr, ~_, wtUt ~5 1'z-4lKl- (;r#IJJJ Ii CT POB I~'f, PECONIC. L. I.. N.Y. 11958-011'\ July lit, 1986 ;Superv i sor Franc i s J. i1ur phy & TOIm Council 11e;nbers TOIm Hall Southo11, l.I., N.Y. . fie: Hichmonil Creek Farms 3ichmonil Associates Project on Richmonrl Creel{, Peconic, L.I., New Yor]{ Honorable i'lurphy & Council ...embers: We oppose the proposed project in its present state as there will be a serious detrimentRl effect on the enviDonment. 1. fiichmond Creel{ is certi fie" for co:nmercial fi shing anrl its wetlands provide breedine grounds, protection, anil food for unique water birds. 2. There must be strict covenants and restrictions against enlarging the narrow section of the cree]{ where the proposerl 11 houses are to be built ns this area proviiles shelter and food for migrating birds. In fact. there shoulrl be fewer houseu (2 to J acres per house on the creek siile as 1 acre is overrlevelopnent and will have a negative environmental i~pact on birils, fish, clams, and other wilrllife. J. There must be strict covenants and restriction that a marina will not be built. 4. There muct not be an expansion near the wetlands at the end of Wells Road for recreatIonal boats. 5. The hleh densIty of homes HlII eventually affect the ground watel' and' the creel(--4ra,1rrage, atorms, and other runoff wlll certainly affe the creek. In add1tion, to date, there has not been Dept of Health water approval because of soil conditions. 6. The entrll1c:e of the cree1{ into the bay is very narrow; therefore restricting the exchanf"::e of l.~aters in the creek. For this reason the creek could be easily polluted. /S~ecial Note: I visited the Army Corps of Engineers, NYC which has not approved any plans including a marina as was submltted by Richmond Associates. There is a ereat concern by the Corps for'the wetlanrl s and for the creek. / Very truly yours. -:J ~; n. -. .;(nt.i . 9/7e:J.44/7;1" / 'l.It..,. Vilma Louise Marston, President IhP0rlTAt,T N()'l'E: .Ie can guarantee a minimum of 65 signatures of lndivi, who we Imow are concerned about this issue. However, there I~as not sufficlent time to secure the signatures. Cr;z. ",", ~ ~ All'j. /;0/2/ /"/2. D:!c File e-c.- ;7 g ~;:./U-.:;:. J Ul 25 1986. , ~. __ ~ --" k ..-.- ~ tPaby, ~~1Vl., Wi/<< ift A~--- 1'r"t<<Ii<<1. Gr~'p ~ "- POB 159, PECONIC, L. I., N.Y. 11958- .July 25. 1986 PlanninG :E:'oard. Tmm Hall Eain Rd. Southold L.I., NY 11971 Gentlemen: He: Additional Reco~~endations and. Considerations on ?roposal Rich~ond. Creel, ?an:lS - Richmond C~eek Peconic, L.I. Environmental impact of great importance relating to the above project are as folloH8: The high densi ty of ho::tes both on the creek and in13nd lIi th stpr!l1 and other runoff 2nd pollutant ,rater seepac;e into the cree], and .:;round Hill further pollute the soil, ground Hater, Hetlands an:1 creek Hater thereby havinG a serious detrimental effect on the quality of life; also, on clams, crabs, and other sea life 1Vhich are a source of employment for fisherman and other residents. In addition, the inlet is a b~eedinc; and feedinG ~round for all types of fish and birds. In addition, He bring to your attention that the 1<:n1 at the Gouthern end of ~ichnond Cree~( at the e~tr2nce to the bay 10 a nestins ~ro~nd for rare tern~j (endan:;ered species). :J~G 013nO have been placed by the :Jept. of Si1vironmental Gonsec-vation at strctegic points. The increased boatini' uhich 'rill be c;enerate'l by the hi::h rJensi ty of housinz; Hill have a ne~ative impact on the nesting grounds of an endangered and. protected species. It is felt that it is adviseable to decrease the proposed nQnber of houoes significantly -inland and on the creel, in order to insure the future viability of Richmond Cree]" the lretlands, nesting :3rounds, sea Ii 'rater and land birds, and fishermen's jobs. rJin"'l therefore~:O p "11' nrelinin8.ry permits are Granted a full scale env ironmental iClpac lc'~ e :-2.uc:. 'r,I th ~he in~)u 0_ he~,;2..' e1' authority. Cor~)s of m~ineeY's. DEC, t.~~ data of this and" other conservation and economic sroups, an.. reSl ent Tl1c.nlc you for your consideration in :)reservins the e.1Vironr.J.ent for the preoent and future Generations. ::c: ::or.o:"3cle ,:u:!'phy ':::'o'Y'''lcil., 3d. of Trustees ~e/\.r': truly yours ~~~47~s!&L lil~a Loulue ~1a~sto~, rresldent . . - ttlmr/~IZHd,1Ji14'ife ~,- 1't'4l<<ti<<l (;rt1tJjJ ~, " . ,)~ --" k --:- ~ POB /~1, PECONIC, L. 1., N. Y. 11958-~i.J;, .July 14, 1986 rmrr. (~ f? li\:;7jf>:il~ IU'; i: Jll 14 1986 !,W UI __ TOWN CF SCUTHCLO Honorable Francis J. ~urphy '" To'm Council Members Tm'!1 Eall Southold, L.I., N.Y. 11971 Re: Richmond Creek Far'lls Richmond Associates Project on Richmond Creek, Peconic 1.T., ~J.Y. Eon01'able ;;;urphy & Council Heabers: ~e o~pose the proposed project in its present state as there will be serious detrimental effect on the environment. 1. J.ich.nond Creel, is certified for commercial fishinG and its wetlands provide breedin3; c;rounds, protection, and food for unique Hater birds. 2. There must be strict covenants and restrictions a~ainst enlarging the n3rrm, section of the creek ',here the Dro:Jose1 11 hOllses are to be built as this area provides shelter and'food for :ni~ratin~ birds, In fact, tlTere should be feHer houses 2 to J acres ;.Jer house on the creek side as 1 acre is overdevelopment and will have a nec;ative envioronmental impact on birds, fish. clans, and other wildlife. ~ .). ':lot There must be strict covenants and restrictigns that a marina will be built. 4. T11ere rnunt not be expansion near the Hetlands at the enn of ells Road for recreational boats. 5. The hiGh densi ty of homes ,dll eventually affect the ground l:ater and the creelc--drainage, stor!lls, and other runoff ld 11 certainly affect the creek. In addition, to date, there has not been De~t of ~ealth 'later approval because of soil conditions. '7 6. The entrance of the cree;c into the bay is very rentrictinc; the exchange of Haters in the creek. cruek could be polluted very easily. ( ,Special I'iote: I visiterl the A-o::my Corps of Sn::;in8ers, liYC, which has leot a,)proved any plnns inchldin,"; 8 Clarina as 1,'8.S suomi tt8:l by Jichaond .t..s8ociateu. There 1s 0. :;re8t concern by the Co~ps for the uetlancls and f'o-::- the cree}{. narro~; therefore For this reason the 1J8-O::Y truly :rours ~:-:,::~~ " , . . July 14, 1986 Supervisor Francis J. Murphy and Members of Southold Town Board Town Hall - Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Honorable Membersof the Southold Town Board - Greetings! Regarding the Richmond Creek Associates Plan which will be voted on this evening, This is an urgent appeal to you to disapnrove the plan of Richmond Creek Associates for housing and a marina to be developed on Wells Road, Peconic, N.Y. The Creek (Richmond Creek), at its north-west end is Tery narrow and it is heavily fringedwith pre~ious wetlands. Housing in large numbers would destroy these wetlands...... Density of houses near the Creek and houses on the Creek can Cause water polution as we know it to have happened on other Creeks in Southold Town. A boat slip or marina of proportions such as indicatedin this particular plan would pollute the waters, destroying the breeding and feeding grounds of the abundant and sometimes rare wild li~e which abounds on this Creek. It is also possible that swampland would emerge such as has happened in parts of New Jersey. Please, pleasesave one of the finest Creeks in the east end by voting NO on this issue of density of housing and the marina. Thank you. / (.v~ "C I l-- Yl'k ,,,-- , \.'+~ ~Jvv\ /' .~) ~~"-' ~~ / t--- 'j i I -~ / I -p'" /~/ ;/ ..,"). /{.'; Lt'It/~'-Cl1- _ t~~ d-- ~y nt'-'-'>~ ~ ~/v, !lrlt;;c c&'~~. ;; ~r'-~\j ;1/ ~~ ~--! ~.v / ,~ ~ " . . . , Annette Kno block P.O. Box 127 Peconic, New York 11958 (516) 734-6609 July 14-, 1986 Sunervisor Frank J. Hurphy Members of Southold Town Board Main street Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Honorable Members of the Southold Town Board Greetings! Before you vote on the proposed development plan of the ~ichmond Creek Associates, may I enter my plea: I have been a resident and taxpayer of Southold Town for 37 years: 30 years as a part-time, "holiday" resident and 7 years Full-time. \~en I bought my cottage on Richmond Creek in 194-9 I had a fine beach and could swim in the Creek off my own private beach. I chose to sacrifice this and let the wetlands take over, to preserve mY.little nart of this beautiful inland bodv of water -- "n~s was long be ore any ~aws were passed r~qu~ring preservation of wetlands. Now I know people have a right to build houses but not at the riskof destroying the fragile beauty of our Creeks and polluting the waters -- no one has this right. This rare land that we have in the east end is special and we do not want it to end up like the Hamptons or Middle Island or Commack, do we?? My plea is to vote no on this development and its marina because it will affect the wetlands and the water and have a terrible impact on the wildlife Which, after all, is an important part of tre charm and beauty of Southold ~own. &in~rel~' . G:1ttw;irA~/ul-li!~ Annette oblock .....-:: -----::. .,.,..... ,I \ l> \ ~ . . ., .~ '~ 1 " '-..-- i ~, from VILMA LOUISE MARSTON June 7, 1986 Honorable Francis j(lurphy and All Members of the Town Board and Board of Trustees 1. Please reconsider the Richmond Associates Proj, 2. Who are the principals in this project? 3. Was a permit issued by DEC in view of the proximity of wetlands? 4. Was there a public hearing? or any public input Encl. See attached letter to DEC and location map. Orig. 1\\ \ \ __ vuft ,e ~ -;:'J;;;; ... --- '.. ~ -~- ~ ("\::~::s , , f" '''l ""c...... File ~,-f'" ") " . . \ <- ;' " J CRE.{J{ IWD WATER. PR07E.ClION yj?f)ljp " ..._--.c_.....,...,,-.~.....,~.__..._. ._ June 5, 1986 .........Ii I j .....:J Dept, of Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40 Room, 219 SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11794 j l~..;':k~~_~~_'~',_"",,,,,_,___,,,- ;," 'J.r,.'~,,~ C' :-~ ~__' .-::.', ",. _ .e Gentlemen: Re: Richmond Associates Project on Richmond Creek, Peconic; L.r. Many of us have called DEC to no avail. There are always busy signals and when we manage to reach the switchboard and leave messages there are no return phone calls We were a committee a nd now have expanded to a very large group. We feel that it, is the responsibility of the DEC to intercede on this project because of the detrimental environmental impact and because of the controversal reports regarding same. We hope that you can assist us and do what is positive to protect all creeks, wetlands, and water bodies on the East End. !.~r.'L~ Richmond Associates intend to build on~9.G.acres,near ~ells Road opposite Peconic Lat on the northwest end of the clean and oeau lful Rlchmona Creek, where there are approximately 49.6 acres. There will be 31 houses on 1/2 acre plots; in addition there will be 11 houses on creek (1 acre). I believe the Planning Board approved these small plots as a trade off for 17 acres of open space. At the present time, the r":aster Plan calls for two acres). Originally there was supposed to be a marina but it was not approved. However, who knows what will happen in this regard later Qi Richmond Creek is certified for com:nercial fishing and is a feeding and breeding grau; for many sea and water birds. There has not been approval of the Health Dept. becau of soil conditions so that there has to be a separate water system. However, in futu years sewage dra~nage will affect the ground water and creek according to knowledgeab sources. In addtion storm water runoff into the creek with the high density of homes will certainly affect shell fish, breeding grounds, and feeding grounds for water bir There are egrets, herons, swans , ducks who use this area. Among other items, there should be an increase in square footage of the dwelling unit There should be convenants and restrictions of the open land area stipulating that a marina cannot be built. There should not be an expansion near the wetlands at the eD of Wells Road for recreational boats. At the present time, fisherman sometimes use this area for their boats which is a small section. The wetlands and land surrounding the creek should not be disturbed by dredging a lal ~ar~in of the creek" for boats as right now in the area of the proposed hou3i~2 compl( tl;ere is a very narrow stri!1 ai' creel" \'Ihich 'Ifill not accommodate boats. In order to ~ave recreational boats there most certainly have to be dredging and there are many ~ birds \"ho feed in that ar~?. '::ritc to :?fy _trUly yours Q v~ oz.:.~ -m~ ~ V~lr:1a Loul.se :;larston POB 111 Peconic, L.I. 11958 '::e hope to hear from you. soon. , ! " . \0' ~ ,~ \ \ 0' , \ ~ " .0' \. '../\ , \ \ nit Thomas B Doc Grattan (l\ S13052'40"E 146.00' N13052'40"W '- 252.35. \ - \ --- \ - Sub \ now Or formerly John B.BruSh, Jr. a Helen Pirog --- I" ""r ~:D :1.\(........ -' ( / c<(E~ .' ~ 1 )t- INDiA N ) Nf'J "t -..( ~ IANF % 1'~ ,~. .0# 1 "'~~ '-'-i," ~:;;~~ ~I r.. ;:. LOCt.T~O~1 ,...' ., - ;::.,'!'._. . . ;'l.faUVttO i" 'I " 1 "'DOC ~i('lh ,) rJW Box 1100 Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 January 30, 1986 Tnv~". i~~lk Swthii14 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Southold Town Board, I am opposed to the Richmond Associates Creek Development plan and marina that was recently put forward in the Town of Southold. Richmond Creek will most certainly be adversely affected by the proposal. The creek is one of our few invaluable resources, and breeding ground for fish, shellfish, and various birdlife. It happeness to be one of the Towns shellfish transplanting areas. Richmond Creek and its surrounding wetlands is a fragile environment and need not be disturbed but preserved. . Please help to protect it from all the dredging, bulkheading. development, and use of the Richmond Associates Plans. Sincerely, Nancy Sawastynowicz /(~ xIc~~3 " ... ~. I . ,"7:r;rr:aJ:j:~ ;lP~'Cql'I('--"'?;. ..' c~\\~;-1! ^<..r...... h.. . .......- ,_, -'-!_ f ';~ ___ (l..'0;";: '.,,! ~ <<"VS':;,....,..J,'.'... ',,), ~.' ~ '.~I;r' :"'-~ = "'\ ... =J;J t.:::::)',,;;,:; :.;'~ I"i""- H \."t,..'"1 ,_"'. ,_'.t, :;::;:.?:} ~ " :.: ..:: ':. . ..'i'c:~"'~" '" "'I \~ '* .;\"9>,/. ~J; -< "'~ .8:) '/ ~j,-"<'~/':} " .,~~'(y /~: ""'~".{ ..;1 ~~J)/ '''C. . ~. .C. '''').J/ _.~...- . JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 December 10, 1981 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Raynor: .. The Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on December 8, 1981 adopted a resolution to approve the proposed subdivision entitled "Richmond Creek Farms", located at Peconic, New York as being developed in the cluster concept. Very truly yours, ~ Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk i' T . . , . . D Southold. N. Y. 11971 HENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr.. Chairman IF.lIli:~*k~R\lOOJIjx JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI. Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. William F. Mullen, Jr. TELEPHONE 765 - 1938 November 12, 1981 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: At a regular meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board, Monday November 9, 1981 the following action was taken: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board forward the proposed subdivision entitled "Richmond Creek Farms", located at Peconic, to the Town Board for a determination on Cluster Development, under the Town Zoning. I have attached a copy of the map and a metes and bounds description for your review. Yours very truly, HENRY E. RAYNOR, JR., CHAIRMAN ;rOLD ff::;:G~ARO By :1 E. Long, secret~ Attch. i , : Peconic, New York 11958, I I , JI . . .11 as executor S of \ . Katherine Skwara I Peconic, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York I t\'.o. 'Ipartyofthefirstpart,and ANN FIORE, residing ai!'iDown East Lane,Southampton,New I York 11968; MARIALLONGO, residing at 144-15 Seventh Avenue,Malba, New i York; SILVESTRO EVANGELISTA, residing at 23-73 26th Street, Astoria, I New York; JOSEPH EVANGELISTA, residing at 28-17 45th Street, Astoria, I New York; LUDWIG H. STEIN, residing at 7 Flag Hill Road,. Chappaqua, New York; and CHRISTOS CHRISTAKE, residing atv:Sloanes Beach ROad, II Sands Point, New York, ti~~l/ II party of the second part, i, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, by virtue of the power and authority given in and by said last Iii \;O'kb~RE~ ~N~si~~i o~H~U~A;D - ~O - ~N;~D - F~R~ - F~V~ ~ ~Oil~O- .. J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -($223,245.00) - ~ollars, ) ~ I lawful money of the United States, paid by the party of the ~ ~ I second part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and Y assigns of the party of the second part forever, \/,\ ~ ('). ,8 ALL that certain plot, piece or paree: of land, with the bnildings and improvements thereon ere.cted, situate, 'U r lyingandbeing:lnUbIl at pe..con~c, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and . State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as '1 ~ follows: "1"" -.--'..,.... ~ .~ ~ BEGINNING at a point on the southeasterly side of Main Road, , !'\. i ';: at the northeasterly corner of the premises about to be described; "-- "l '~3' Said point of beginning being distant 1026.78 feet south~gesterly as .~ 4 measured along the southeasterly side of Main Road from its inter- .- section with the westerly side of Wells Road; Running thence from said point or place of beginning along the westerly side of land now or formerly of Charles J. Simon Estate and along the westerly side of land now or formerly of Zaiser and land now or formerly of Sims, South 21 degrees 21 minutes 10 seconds East, 2904.83 feet to the northerly side of land now or formerly of C, Skwara; Running thence along said last mentioned land, the following: North 77 degrees 27 minutes 20 seconds West, 100.00 feet; North 10 degrees 33 minutes 40 seconds East, 35.86 feet; North 59 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds West, 197.27 feet and South 30 degrees 14 minutes 30 seconds West, 175.00 feet to the northeasterly side of Wells Road; Running th~nce along the northeasterly and the northerly side of Wells Road, the following: North 59 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds West, 341.71 feet and South 68 degrees 25 minutes 00 seconds West, 434.00 feet to the ordinary high water mark of Richmond Creek; Running thence along said Richmond Creek, the following tie line courses and distances: North 28 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West, 783.12 feet; North 9 degrees 37 minutes 10 seconds West, 598.41 feet and thence across said Richmond Creek a tie line of North 58 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds West, 38.89 feet to land now or form- erly of Island Associates; Running thence along said land now or formerly of Island Associates North 16 degrees 44 minutes 50 seconds West, 115.00 feet; Running thence still along land now or formerly of Island Associates and again crossing Richmond Creek, North 62 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds East, 326.10 feet; Il l '-g..-'.I Running thence still along land now or formerly of Island Associate~ (formerly Bedell), North 14 degrees 20 minutes 30 seconds West, 521.50 feet to land now or formerly of Szczotka (formerly Brush); Running thence along said last mentioned land, North 13 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds West 252.35 feet to the southeasterly side of ~ '-_~~'~"-'-'''fO'~'-- . ,,1- ..:..{/ ~ i)c, ..f'\c-; , . '1 M-2748 CTIC 11 73-S- 01690 ~. CbJ ~.' " _ _ ~.___.=c .--,-,-.- -.-. . . _ .....~ ...' . '------ --....-----.-.- 'I s':(~"J N. 'r B.T.'; ;~'m SOlO . '.6"3M~~~"u,o,'~ D"d-indivi~"ol;" co<p<>u~~o.''''' L '8E R 7 ~: 4: 4pm ;}~6 . , CO~I5ULT YOUR LAWYElI DIEl'O+ING THIS INSTRUMENT-THIS INSTRUM.OULD BE USED BY LAWYms ONLY. : J?lease Do Not Publish '18' : 12'. 7 -,Ig-73 '- I THIS INDENTURE, made the '6 clay of June , nineteen hundred and ,e v,::!n ty- three, I' ,BETVlEEN HELEN S. STEPNOSKI , CHESTER SKWARA, both r"dding lHAl ESTATE ,:{~ sum Cf * = Tn '1'5"[0 T\") .,0. ."~i" Vi~:'" .. c-.J 1\....... '. ,-. .~.^J'T-: ..., !1 ~ ,J I.) \.. ,~,;'..: ~11' t. * en ~c~t. or _ _~~(;r .-. " " ,:; ~ !' r . Ili":!.:",,, .J~l. i ~ :; ... " ...,. .......... K <'-J &. ~lrrOI1[" PJ.lr!9t,S . _,* at /VoLtv N...u,y. lb. and = '- ~~>- -'- 0% ~" ~~ <~ the last will and testament of , late of , deceased, ~-~ i. . ,,,- r .' . ~~:; /-1.14. 1':,,,, .DO '- -, . Main Road; Running thenc~ along said southeasterly side of Main Road, North 48 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East, 22.54 feet to land now or formerly of T. Grattan; Running thence along said land now or formerly of T. Grattan, the following: South 13 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East, 146.00 feet; North 56 degrees 22 minutes 40 seconds E~, 146.85 feet and North 21 degrees 10 minutes 20 seconds West, 159.00 feet to the southeasterly side of Main Road; Running thence along -the southeasterly side of Main Road, North 48 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East, 419.23 feet to the point or place OL Beginning. II :1 I " - " . , ~ - , ,- - / �t�3,�.t t• ' 29og s.; �� 3S` 9✓ �'�rf 773•"P. '- , 'O 750 i � 97o Vp' j,$ d PALz ANG 1 1 ct s ) �Gorltc L.A. m k bar °Ij f b �; 3 J h i{ In � 6!! AG � S4nAtg1 G F 5 795 J - 1.75 - - q tTo I tSd i � p ' v. , CIL O It Is _ _asfac<t _ Lrre �. FF \ � �, ta"�✓. � `�:. v �,..i ti � �b / .�� � O• � "o _ Ifs j Is + ���•L? - • '' wtoS ion lQS 1 .60 _ _�— - • -\ O . _ - - . _IT z 4r ice _ - _ (2.� l ! k ms's o04 /�.o _ tP [ off � oryolgl t 3 rvlo �! i 1 A 7 �rEn IO [A i I _ - --, -� 0.- z a I + e 759.0 a.t � c, bZOO I'm ra 4 . • �� �-$' �?uR a 2� r o.S + � � '!' _ `ti ' ti.=, b. 'C'1 �3.�,'� � �� � � & .- _ N rea No!�- I - �,-�'t • - v) ", y ,N .v, :3^S•2.4o•w. !/'a rto tzT GL_ Welt kap 5 N a is •V 1 1 .: BIT Aa !OS �`- - ..a f f'' rc� /(fir r «'�'f'.,T 1' ._. • `\ �;= .=rya '-`-` —_ ;r}r j.[///L {.,�/{ �"' �j(.f,�J!.rf f FY l t/l i.=i^'J , AomouiM ALinnnoN OR Aovrtron — L, 6 _ w•w• ..Y.". + ..,, ---;r:Q`- s - _ - r� - r ♦_4_��+v 1 — -'E - ,r 'i�f '.-�{Af t TO THIS 5HYEV IS A VIOLATION OF !�'= _ a - - 1 _ 1{ - '�V•" `^ _.. - .. - 6'' I(' _ EERIOH)P0 OF iM1E NEN I•,R EFATF �- C �L p 1 •,C 1 \_ ` = -� 1 I EDUCATION LAW ' I" �i �'AC- - .�!-R.;_Mo W-ev As ¢"- COPIES OF THIS SIIRVfl RA°+'tel GEARING pp I .. IXE LARD fWVEYGR II F K' .. - �� �.e`� ) -(J [«BOSSED SAL EXALL eCT L Z- •I-lLR ' � - - - /� a - \\ l - CSI \' J y, _ rJ�'� /J (,M1 fl..�, '� //rI�})(y\///j�J� (,f•, j}s f/�+��/�'�^ F j; f�/ �- ro BE A vAHo T�vu.cull .. "�_-'"-_ 1, - _ - /{j.. J V P 1 ! �/ W! G/� V �'1 YL� GeA GuuANTLEs IlnmuRD HLP SHALL RUN - X '!I�y., ate.✓y/,' -. - - - .I 'f �k = I ,. - - __. "•i • - l 1� /`n ' �\'��'- ! AT ONLY TO THE VE-EON FOR _.THE SURVEY ,S FRETARED.AHD ON H6 I_N �l 1.THE It p {} - \\ �, �", , ' �•: - - �,!-.yO•; fC U- fL • T• DiIECOMPANY,GOVEAu1EVA1.0 AH1 - ,J�// �}�.�• ILVH RID INSUMION H.-r M 14i.AND N'ep yyVC Y ���,\�' - Mi�•)=as _ _ 1]THE ASSIGHLES OF ME -EI o\5 INAI- �.oH r•uAllurtas A•s.or Tk.ANBFRRARL. .00mOHAL INSMUT LDa OR suRFEOUF. - 431-, - �'(' :I- TO,- � .. .FTG/f�nenB� i - twf�Bt� essr 19F✓s 'o{ea b� t. /nd(iv;Ro1mvl wells dnd cesshocls for eocty to ti : '.L: .5 IL der ditffblle C'9. Xeklfh .. Sri t: 6�'tt f5. / �6BC•.,e, - `� ! N M N - - -f - G t�., ! � G ��6r,>sSfcrYC$.::� Crar}�jar'13#v S. 6varrge%'sra - � � ��� - I '�, fr9S? -3, Pre,rtf•Sss v>B � A�rtiC . zo:ts 'A•. ;Yrlryft�$4r �• =eli.�� t-i',- s'J'�i�:- - � - - _, - - - - _ - . .. q, esu a!s c'nurr>k 73.ax. Me �'€.7f 3ksftan: -1©�G-Si-f- 9. •ff Y �' 9 �r+�err`c�":tf�rtr :7" f, pa, C: � • * _"� �/_ __ ' _ i -� — -- HiQi7u e r dens#rtcfran �ar 6auk:ld 7ou:r ` s�Ye's. /2 _es._. `.r1 Ecre s -b "deea'/e trtts6 ',it`rxtiatie'L #a k'1£' irlrSfoltEd, V t©as�a �rccsse ' Al' rtraEss�a s r RECEIVED 81! �4�i✓ ,+ . t —:— - -__ KAY tv?RG� �srit % ` t o:� rstlr r Ata r+, Lfato SBBiNBI➢ TOWN PLANNING BBQBB Ore—l � a ' ardasncr e_ &rr: �~M4 A Jird t £9�t 97$9–Ry , —-- DATE .k