The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-75.-1-20.1 •0S . REY'S DOMI ION 5V /�F 49 Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, Ltd. 44075 Main Road, Peconic, NY 11958 Phone (631) 765-6188, Fax (631) 765-1903 w .ospreysdominion.com April 5, 2006 Town of Southold Planning Board Chairperson Gerilyn Woodhouse Please be advised that we would like to withdraw our application for the installation of a windmill on Osprey's Dominion Vineyards. Sincerely, .dj r� Frederick W. K ehle� President rf 1 AP4� � �ne,6 P, . ITE PLAN STATUS REPORT SITE PLAN TYPE: AMENL' D✓ NEW_/WITHDRRAWN_INCOMPLETE PROJECT NAME: L /A4 W/ w4(6/.jC/ S��/ IGn� ZONEI:&I ZON :_ ZONE3:_ LOCATION: a�6�Z W 4 0 an ��— AMLET: SCTM# 1000 - > - / 6 rX 2 o OWNERNANIE: /ar , o�� TEL# APPLICANT NAME: TEL# ( 'b)S/f - 572d tee ~9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR rsr J J o . e ON ¢�.36 ACRES PARCEL IN THE /q-e ZONE LOCATED AT IN .<. /! SCTM#1000- (SEE ABOVE). DATE PRE-SUBMISSION WRITTEN RE VEST: PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE 30 DAYS OF WRITTEN REQUEST) INFORMAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS:PRE-WORK SESSION: APPLICATION RECEIVED: PAYMENT RECEIVED: JAMOUNT RECEIVED:$ O /OS/ 63 FEE AMOUNT: $300.X =$ $.05 X SF=$ _$ -200 —NEW APPLICATION WORKSESSION(WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT) 171 APPLICANT ADVISED OF NECESSARY REVISIONS IN 30 DAYS OF REVIEW) REVISED SUBMISSION RECEIVED: _/— LEAD AGENCY: 1-/PX TOS OTHER /0/ 03�/ 03 T COORDINATED:_ UNCOORDINATED:_ (TYPEt_TYPE2:—UNLISTED:) L.Q/i4r � 50 63 SE RA DETERMINATION RECEIVED/REVIEW: RECEIVED DATE REVIEWED DATE DRAINAGE PLAN: LANDSCAPE PLAN: LIGHTING PLAN: REFERRED FOR APPROVALS: REFERRED DATE APPROVAL DATE NOTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:APPEAL#: a- l�lIII U q/ BOARD OF TRUSTEE'S: 1L/ /O�_ �/1 /Dj N y� BUILDING DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: i�,5 a TOWN ENGINEER APPROVAL: 03 2mig— ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: /2=2-6 2i 01 12-/_e/0.3 DEP.OF TRANSPORTATION:DOT—,DPW_, TOS_ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING: 11119 l 03 _l l FIRE COMMISSIONERS: N�' V"hf✓ TOWN ATTORNEY &R'S - REFERR£D DATE APPROVAL DATE NOTES DRAFT COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS: FILED COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS: PLANNING BOARD APPROVALS PREPARED: CONDITIONAL FINAL:—/_/_ FINAL:_/�/ NOTES ENDORSEMENT OF SITE PLAN: FINAL SITE PLAN INSPECTION: DISTRIBUTE APPROVED SITE PLANS TO: BUILDING DEPT / / TOWN ENG G NERAL NO S: J 1 9 / / O — HZ/Dj �-5tr+/ M�..ur M f'"t�7lis os/J COrY'sv�r,�/3. ' 14-4NNING BOARD MEMBERS OFFQ(;p ` SENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. P.O.Box-1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 RICHARD CAOOIANO - Southold,New York 11971.0959 WILLIAM J.CREMERS Telephone(631) 765.1938 KENNETH L.EDWARDS V Fax(631)7859138 MARTIN H.9iDOR Sl * Date Received Date Completed PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Filing Fee TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN x New Change of use _Re-use - Extenslon _Revision Of Approved Site Plan Name Of Business or Site: Osprey's Doninion Vineyard SCTM#: 1000- 75 1 201 and 202 Location: Peconic Town of Southold Address: 44075 Main Road Name of Applicant: Long Island Power Authority Address Of Applicant: 333 Earle Ovington Blvd. Suite 403, Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 222-7700 Owner of Land: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, Ltd. Agent or Person responsible for application; Frederick Peritore, Keyspan, as agent for LIPA Address: 175 East OLd Country Road HicksviLLe, NY 11801 Telephone: (516) 545-5720 Site plans prepared by: Bohler Engineering P.C. License No. 59841 Address 201 North Service Road, McLviLLe, NY 11747 Telephone: (516) 872-2000 OCT-13-2003 01:36PM FROIkBOHLER EMEERING t1018872200T • T-823 P.004/G04 F-017 r • Paae 3 Ptanning Board Sae Plan Appl-cagon 50.84 AC rota! Land Area of Site (acres or square feet) A --Zoning District Existing Use of Site Vineyard/Winery Proposed Uses on Site.Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building Will have WhM use. If more-than one use Is proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area that will be reserved per use. 2.728 SF Winery sales area (existing) — 3,617 SF Winery production area (exiartng) 441 SF Wind Turbine on r gad (yynnneeA) — 6,345 SF cross Roor Area of Existing Structure(s) y41 SP Cross Floor Area of Proposed Structuraw 0.3X Percent of Lot Coverage by Buelding(s) 0 r 1 y Percent of Lot for Parking (where appllcable) oa j 4% Percent of Lot for Landscaping (where appllcabiel Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by Board OF Appeals-Case # &date Board of Trustees- Case# & date NY State Department of Environmental Conservation -Case #& date Suffolk County Department Health Services-case # &date Case Number Name of Applicant Date of Decision Expiration Date Other Vona _____Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be N/A stored or handled at the site? If so, have proper permits been obtained? Name of Issuing agency IVWNumber and date of permit issued. NO AC77ON 0=4VATTON OR CONSTRUCTION)MAYBE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROI/AL OF SITE PLAN BY PLANNING BOARD. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT rO PROSECUTION. y . t Page 2 Planning Board Site Plan Application APPLJCANfS AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW WORT( COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Frederick Peritore being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at in the State of New York, and that he Is the owner of the above property, or that he is the Senior Projett Manager oftl9e Keyspan, acting as agent for the Long Island Power MUM (Specify whethor Partrlarahlp or Corp.) Authority which is hereby making application; that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that the title to the entire parcel, Including all rights-OF-way, has been dearly established and is shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the flung of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the Plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed In any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical Improvements will be Installed In strict accordance with the Plans submitted. Signed (Owner) Signedc±':L � • �- (Partner or Corporate Officer and Title) Sworn to me this JL_day of fie'oXO 3 ( ubla;) 1111111" i�. QOIIOfI iVYN NOtf� i STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) I, Edward Grilli, Chief of Staff of the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"), hereby authorize Keyspan to act as LIPA's agent and handle all necessary work involved in LIPA's applications for(a) site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board, and(b) a special exception use permit and height variance from the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. & EJ>VVARD GRILLI Sworn to before me this /47Vday of October, 2003 Notary Puffic MWIT J,OONROY Notary Pubgo, State of Now York No. 01000038213 Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires March 6 G KL8.22%081.1 .. go.N a Nv -149 Karen L.Mintzer \staid KRAMER LEAN_ � �pplporrt9 Nyt1a5 Kramer Levin Naftalis&Fran el LLP 1�P nd8t ecuilve n I ud Avenue New York vs 00 �on0 AA8Xa �°unt�"ts a1 o-.� _1z-/F ?76 fax 2r715800' san1Ot�aVor P°°Ode �634)44 5 � kmintze-TI kk amedevin coin Pax�63 ) 624,415 Nvw York Fnris Paget(5161 aayUas�KeYspaaenergy o°m Frederick S.Perltefe Richard G.Leland Senior R&D Project Manager Electric Research&Development /,T�el 75 East Old Country Road KRAMER CEKEVWM 1N icksville,NY 11801 --- 1uLPl. 516 545-5720 Kramer Levin Naftalis&Fran Nr v k Serving Fax 516 545-5248 lurtl Ave c 1 LII'A 1 f perito re�keyspanene rgy.coin le a deukram ileum ro=° w•�•••••,•�••• NCI Jarf rnn> BOHLER ENGINE Ate, ENGINEERING, rc. ,K`1•{U,--1 J JOSEPH P. COLUCCI Environmental and Planning Qonsultonts 201 North Service Road JessicaM.Zall I Melville, NY 5 .2000-516.872.2007 fax Environmental Scientist jcOlucci®bohlereng.com o 0735 vvww.bohlereng.com te1:631265- fax:631 265-3796 CIVIL&CONSULTING ENGINEERS-TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS 3 email:jessica_zanca@akrf.com SURVEYORS ENVIRONMENTAL&GEGTEGIENIGAL ENGINEERS 222 Middle Country Road,Suite 314.5muhtown,NY 11787 i Town Of Southold • P.O Box 1179 + Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT Date: 11/05/03 Receipt#: 0 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $300.00 Check#:41108 Total Paid: $300.00 E C E E NOV - 5 2003 D Southold Town Planning Board Name: Kramer, Levbin Naftalis & Frankel 919 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 Clerk ID: JOYCEW Intemal ID:83246 Neje son, Pope & Vogois, LLV Property: 03455 Project: VA01393 5-rrWalt Whitman Road Phone: 427-5665 Melville NY 11747 Fax: 631-427-5620 LIPA Wind Energy PC Manager: McGinn,Steven Invoice To: Town of Southold Plannin¢BoardInvoice#: 2569 Town Hall,53095 State Rte 25 Invoice Date: July 16,2004 PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971-0959 Attention:Bruno Semon MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO NELSON POPE&VOORHIS Invoice Amount $527.50 Contract Item#II: Follow-up and review of revised Part III;preparation of Final Memo. Work Performed: 3/10 thru 3/17/04 Professional Services Bill Hours Bill Rate Charee Municipal Hydrogeologist/Sr Envir. Analyst Municipal Application Reviews 4.00 110.00 440.00 Managing Partner Municipal Application Reviews 0.50 175.00 87.50 Municipal Total: 4.50 $527.50 Professional Services Totals $527.50 *** Total Project Invoice Amount $527.50 AU invoices are due act 30 days. A Late charge of I%per month wiU be added to any unpaid balance otter 30 days Please make all checks payable to NELSON POPE&VOORHIS Please include invoice number on check NELSON POPE&VOORHIS NOW ACCEPTS CREDIT CARDS VISA - MASTERCARD - AMERICAN EXPRESS L5 C E V � f J u i_ 2 1 2004 Y�v '1/Jl e'-1 Jarc< 4�r Southold Town r-aJ.z .ue, Plarning Boar+ QarO : T PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS o�$OfFOI��o JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE P.O. Box 1179 Chair Town Hall,53095 State Route 25 y M Southold, New York 11971-0959 RI N0 LLIA J. CREM S i • Telephone(631) 765-1938 KENNETH L. RDS EDWA Fax (631) 765-3136 MARTIN H. SIDOR 'j.�Ol * �! PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 27, 2004 Federick Peritore Keyspan 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,NY 11801 Re: LIPA Windturbine at Osprey Dominion 44075 Main Road Peconic,NY SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 &20.2 Dear Mr. Peritore, The Planning Board received the Town ZBA denials dated 5/20/04 to the relief requested. Please indicate in writing what you would like to do next with the Planning Board Site Plan Application? The site plan application can't be processed or approved without the relief from the ZBA. If there are any questions you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Re ly yo s i B emo Senior Site Plan Reviewer CC:file PLANNING BOARD MEMBER �gOFFO(,r�, • JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE �.0 P.O.Box 1179 Chair Town Hall,53095 State Route 25 ap Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO y, Telephone(631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN x SIDOR y�0 * �•a0�' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: May 27, 2004 To: James A. Richter, R.A., Engineer From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Amended Site Plan Approval for LIPA Wind Turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zoned AC Status: On hold for denied ZBA decisions Required Return Date: Not at this time, please hold off on any further review. In reference to the above, attached you will find a copy of the ZBA decisions for your records. Please attach to the site plan sent to your office. Thank you in advance. Cc: file Eric.: ZBA appeals PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SVFF��A C JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE P.O. Box 1179 Irk, , Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO • Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS F KENNETH L.EDWARDS Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: May 27, 2004 To: Planning Board Members From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Update on the LIPA Wind turbine at Osprey Dominion 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM#:1000-75.-1-20.1 & 20.2 This memo is to forward the decisions rendered by the Town ZBA. Please refer to the attached decisions. At this time the decisions will be placed in the office file, please let me know if you would like to discuss this application. The complete file is available in the Planning Board Office for review. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, A, vs, Enc. " S41rir= • gaf n 65 AP BOARD MEMBERS C Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer s P.O.Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora Southold,NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765.1809 James Dinizio,Jr. �1 * �aO� Fax(66]31)765-9064 http://southoldtown.northfork.net D ' "-' � ' V BOARD OF APPEALS D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAY 2004 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETER NAT Southold Town MAY 20,2004 1 Planning Board ZBA#5450-5E - Lonn Island Power Authority. Lessee.by Kevsoan. as Anent Property Owner: Osprey Dominion Ltd.by Frederick Koehler, President Property Location: 44075 Main Road, Peconic;CTM #75-1-20.1; 20.2 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's parcel is located in the Agricultural- Conservation (A/C) Zone District, and consists of 50+- acres, 4.6+- acres for the existing winery/agricultural use and 45.4+- acres, located on the north side of the Main Road (NYS Route 25) In Peconic. A 4.6+- acre section of the entire 50 acres is improved with two agricultural buildings and on-site processing of grapes from owner's vineyards. APPLICANT'S REQUEST/BASIS OF APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting a Special Exception under 100-31 B(6)for a proposed experimental public utility wind turbine. STANDARDS/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: After review of the requirements set forth pursuant to Chapter 100 governing a public utility right-of-way, structure and use, as provided under Section 100-31 B(6) In this Special Exception application, and on the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted,and personal Inspection,the Board finds: The applicant (LIPA) is a public utility leasing 875 sq. ft. of land,with dedication of a two- acre area for the proposed turbine. The 12/17/03 site map, revised 3115/04 by J. Grammas Consultants, shows all areas of the agricultural site, existing and proposed, with the wind turbine use. The owner's 4.6+- acre site (CTM 75-1-20.1) is occupied by the owner's agricultural winery. The owner's contiguous vineyard property, restricted to prohibit development, is 45.4+- acres. Combined the total property consists of 50.84 acres. Also submitted are a 12/17/03 Landscape Plan and construction details for the proposed 125' high wind turbine (100' plus 25' blade span). The wind turbine is shown in its proposed location 600 feet north of the Main Road. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant, LIPA/Keyspan, Indicates a 20-yr. lease, with a 25' x 35' section of land for construction and operation of a turbine structure. The purpose of the wind turbine structure is as an experimental purpose related to generating clean energy, in a joint 10- year program with the LI Farm Bureau for demonstration purposes. The production module is 15/50 Drive Train assembly manufactured by AOC. The applicant proposes a 20-year time frame. During the hearings, nearby landowners and homeowners expressed concerns regarding noise drone levels at certain times of operation. The applicant confirms Increased noise Page 2—May 20,2004 Appl.No.5450SE—Osprey DominionlLIPA 75.1.20.1,20.2 at Peconlc and vibration levels for a limited time period, and proposes low-noise emission level equipment and operational procedures during construction activities. Max. sound power level lar101 dB(p.2.37 of EA). Neighbors also expressed concern over the visual Impacts In this rural neighborhood. Once the structure is built, It will be visible from locations within 1-mile. The structure would be easily viewed from the Scenic Byways Corridor designed by New York State (Route 25 and Route 48)and within 1740 feet,or more,over open spaces and fields. In addressing visual concerns, the applicant has offered: a) monthly site visits, b) a neutral color and a design with lattice built into the structure, and c) to locate the structure north of the two winery buildings on the site, within the agricultural landscape and grape vineyards. These measures do not satisfy the concerns about visibility, since monthly site visits will only confirm and not remedy this concern,and do not demonstrate how additional construction material (lattice) makes the tower and blades less visible, particularly at the top half portion of the tower where the blades are visible over the existing buildings and tree lines,and not screened from view. The applicant owns other parcels within Suffolk County either being used or available for an experimental energy generating purposes, Including some that are already Improved with public utility structure or uses. It is not disputed that other areas within the Town or County are available for purchase or lease to house such an experimental project. 1. Zoning Code Section 100-31B(6)provides that: §10031.Use regulations.[Amended 3-14-1989 by L.L.No.3-19891 In A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which Is arranged, Intended or designed to be used,In whole or In part,for any uses except the following: B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. (Amended 12-21- 1993 by LL. No.27-1993]. The following uses are permitted by special exception from the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and, except for two-family dwellings and the uses set forth In Subsection 8(14) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (6) Public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other Installations necessary to serve areas within the town, except that wireless communication facilities must obtain approval pursuant to Article XVI, subject to such conditions as the Board of Appeals may Impose In order to protect and promote the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. [Amended 11-12- 1997 by L.L No.26.1997] First, the Board determines that the proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure does not quality as a special exception use under Section 100-31 B(8). The proposed wind turbine is neither a "public utility right-of-way"nor a structure or other Installation that is"necessary Ilk Page 3-May 20,2004 Appl.No.54505E-Osprey DominIonAJPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic to serve" any area within the town. By definition, the conceded "experimental" wind turbine cannot be construed as necessary. Moreover, the proposed turbine Is not In harmony with the zoning ordinance and will adversely affect the neighborhood for the reasons noted below. 2. The Board has reviewed the General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in Section 100-263 and finds that: A) The use of a portion of this property for Installation of a wind turbine structure will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties and uses in this zone district and properties and uses in adjacent districts. The adjacent properties are in the Agricultural-Conservation and Residential Zone Districts. The safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and the order of the town will be affected by the proposed use and its location. The proposed wind turbine is 125 feet in height to be hosted on an open farm. The structure Is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area and will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of properties adjacent to this property and adjacent districts. The structure as proposed has not been a necessity for the operation of the farm or as a public necessity to serve the town. The proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view over the surrounding farm lands and open spaces, impacting and interfering with the historical and rural farms and open vistas along the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. B) The use will not be in harmony with and will not promote the general purposes and Intent of the code. Zoning Code Section 100-31B(6) clearly states that the only potentially pertinent use to be authorized by Special Exception is, "a Public utility right-of- way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town." The applicant is proposing a wind turbine with blades at 125 feet in height as an experimental facility hosted on an open farm. The proposed structure and use Is not a public utility right-of-way. In addition, notwithstanding the experimental nature of this structure, the turbine could easily be located on other lands, Including on other available lands in the area, or on other lands owned, leased or otherwise available to LIPA or Keyspan. As stated, it Is neither a public utility right-of-way necessary to serve areas within the Town. It is not a permitted use and therefore contrary to the purposes of the code. C) The wind turbine is not compatible with its surroundings or with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regarding to visibility, scale and overall appearance. The particular site chosen by applicant is and has been a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres dedicated to agricultural open space, vineyards, and an agricultural winery use. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses are expanding and consist of a landscape nursery use, farm uses, single-family dwellings. A Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tooker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed wind turbine tower. The proposed tower with turbine blades will be visible across the fields between Page 4-May 20,2004 Appl.No.5450-5E-Osprey Dominion/LIPA 75.1.20.1,20.2 at Peconlc the Peconic Recreation Center, from the Main Road, and will give an "Industrial" appearance. The proposed 125 feet in height will create a distinctly commercial view, visible from the nearby homes and viewed over the surrounding rural, open farm lands and other open spaces, Impacting and Interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. 3. In making this determination, the Board has also reviewed other matters under Section 100-264, and finds that adverse conditions will result from an approval of a special exception In this matter: A. There will be changes adversely affecting the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of such permitted uses. The proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure will adversely affect the rural character of the surrounding area and the probably expansion of agricultural and residential uses. The property Is Zoned Agricultural-Conservation and R- 40 Low-Density Residential. The proposed 125 fL high structure will create a distinctly commercial view over the surrounding farm lands and open spaces, impacting and Interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of agricultural and residential open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are probable expanding permitted uses. The location of a commercial wind turbine Is peculiar to this district. B. Property values will not be conserved. No evidence has been submitted to show that the proposed experimental wind turbine in this area of surrounding agricultural and residential uses will conserve property values. The proposed turbine tower is not a public utility necessary to serve the Town, and as such is not an authorized use in this Agricultural-Conservation Zone District. The structure is not a farm structure, and no wind turbines have historically existed within area farms in the town for the purpose proposed by applicant. The applicant also has not provided proof that the structure is accessory or Incidentally necessary to the agricultural uses at the site. The applicant also has not proven that Installation of this structure is a public necessity to serve the town. C. The operation of a wind turbine at a height of 125 feet will cause undue Interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public, and by recreational facilities, existing or proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. The wing span of the blades will be 50 feet wide, and viewed above the tops of mature trees, visible from the Main Road and areas to the south/west, over and above the roof of the existing agricultural building(s). The area has historically existed as rural with open vistas, farmland and single-family residences. The Interference will be caused by visual effects as an "Industrial" structure from many sites, and with varying noise effects up to 101 dBA (maximum)from several directions. Page 5-May 20,2004 Appl.No. 54505E-Osprey DominionlLIPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic D. The site is not particularly suitable for a wind turbine operation considering its size and character of the neighborhood. The wind turbine is proposed at a height of 125 ft.from ground level,which is 107 feet higher than the zoning code permits. A structure of this height is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area, and the proposed 125 ft. high structure will be visible from various segments of the roadways and from nearby parks, landscapes, and surrounding farms, open spaces, and residentially used property. The installation of this structure will create a distinctly commercial view Interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. An existing Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tooker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed facility. The proposed facility will be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center and the Main Road. There are approximately seven homes on the west side of Peconic Lane that would have views of the proposed facility. The closest mature trees adjacent to the proposed facility are at about 60 feet in height,which does not screen the very visible 125 ft. height at the top half section of the proposed facility. Adding lattice work to the structure as offered by the applicant would increase its visibility rather than reduce it. E. Evidence and concerns with respect to visual impact and noise impact have been presented to show that there will be detrimental impacts to adjacent properties and land uses. Noise Impacts: The proposed wind turbine would increase noise levels at the nearby residence by 1.3 dBA to a background noise level of approximately 49.7 dBA(ref. 2-38 of EA). Maximum noise levels from the blades of the proposed wind turbine occur during periods when high winds occur. The applicant stated that the maximum sound power level is 101 decibels of noise from the proposed wind turbine. During periods of high winds, ambient noise levels tend to be higher. (pgs.2-37,2-38 EA). Visual impacts: The property is at least 600 feet wide, and clearly visible from adjacent areas, Including open fields, residences, pedestrians, and while driving along the Main Road and along Wells Road to the southwest. The proposed facility will also be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center, from approximately seven homes on the west side of Peconic Lane, and adjacent areas on the east and north of this site. A structure at this proposed 125 feet in height Is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area and will be visible from various segments of the roadways and from nearby parks, landscapes, farms and other open spaces, and residentially used property. The Installation of this structure will create a distinctly commercial view Interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and Page 6-May 20,2004 1 1 Appl. No.5450SE-Osprey DominionlUPA 75-1-20.1,20.2 at Peconic the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant Is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery,farmland,single-family dwellings)are expanding. 4. The Board further concludes that without meeting the requirements of Section 100-31 B as a public utility right-of-way,or structure,or Installation,necessary to serve areas within the Town, rather than as an experimental wind turbine, the Special Exception may not be granted. The Board concludes that the wind turbine, as applied for, does not meet the considerations for a Special Exception. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B,motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando,and duly carried,to DENY the variance, as applied for. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Members Oliva(Chairwoman),Tortora,and Orlando. Nay: Member Dinizio. (Absent was Member ehringer.) �This Resolution was duly adopted RUTH D. OLIVA,CHAIRWOMAN Approved for Filing 51@11104 �, r�5 P BOARD MEMBERS Dim Southold Town Hail uth D. Oliva,Chairwoman Q T� 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer Z P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Southold,NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando �! Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio,Jr. �! > t �`a Fax(631)765-9064 http://southoldtown.northfork.net D LS « U E- BOARD OF APPEALS D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAY 2 5 2004 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MAY 20,2004 Southold Town Planning BOW Appl. No. 5432-V—Long Island Power Authority.Lessee. by Kevspan. as Anent Property Owner: Osprey Dominion Ltd.by Frederick Koehler, President Property Location: 44075 Main Road, Peconic; CTM #1000-75-1-20.1; 20.2 PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's parcel consists of 50+- acres located on the north side of the Main Rod (NYS Route 25) in Peconic, Including 4.6+-acres for the existing winery agricultural building and processing building, and the remaining farm land (vineyards) of 45.4+-acres. The property is located in the Agricultural-Conservation (A/C) Zone District. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Variance from Section 100-33A concerning the applicant's proposed wind turbine structure which will exceed the code's height limitation of 18 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on December 18, 2003 and February 26, 2004, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. In addition, legal replies were permitted to be submitted not later than April 2, 2004. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100-33A to install a wind turbine facility containing the wind turbine on top of a support tower and control equipment. This structure Includes a width of 50 feet for the turbine blades. The structure will be located on a section of land 875 sq. ft. in size (25' x 351), after dedicating two acres to the proposed turbine use. The owner(Osprey Dominion Ltd.) owns both this 4.6+- acre site with a winery and the adjacent 45.4+- acres with vineyards, restricted to non-development. Also submitted are a 12117/03 Landscape Plan and 12/17/03 site map, revised 3/15/04 by J. Grammas Consultants,and construction details for the proposed 125' high wind turbine (100' plus 25' blade span). The proposed turbine structure will be at least 600'from road north of the existing agricultural buildings. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant, LIPA/Keyspan, indicates a 20-yr. lease, with a 25' x 35' section of land for construction and operation of a turbine structure. The purpose of the wind turbine structure is as an experimental purpose related to generating clean energy, in a joint 10- year program with the LI Farm Bureau for demonstration purposes. The production module is 15150 Drive Train assembly manufactured by AOC. The applicant proposes a 20-year time frame. During the hearings, nearby landowners and homeowners expressed concerns regarding noise drone levels at certain times of operation. The applicant confirms increased noise Page t—May2o,2004 Appl.No.3432v—UPAIKeyspan/osprey 754-20.1,20.2 at Peconic and vibration levels for a limited time period, and proposes low-noise emission level equipment and operational procedures during construction activities. Max. sound power level is 101 dB(p.237 of EA). Neighbors also expressed concern over the visual Impacts in this rural neighborhood. Once the structure Is built, it will be visible from locations within 1-mile. The structure would be easily viewed from the Scenic Byways Corridor designed by New York State (Route 25 and Route 48)and within 1740 feet,or more,over open spaces and fields. The property is at least 600 feet wide, and clearly visible from adjacent areas, including open fields, residences, pedestrians, and while driving along the Main Road and along Wells Road to the southwest. The proposed facility will also be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center, from approximately seven homes on the west side of Peconic Lane, and adjacent areas on the east and north of this site. A structure at 125 feet In height is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area and will be visible from various segments of the roadways and from nearby parks, landscapes, farms and other open spaces, and residentially used property. The installation of this structure will create a distinctly commercial view interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. The particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. In addressing visual concerns, the applicant has offered: a) monthly site visits, b) a neutral color and a design with lattice built Into the structure, and c) to locate the structure north of the two winery buildings on the site, within the agricultural landscape and grape vineyards. These measures do not satisfy the concerns about visibility, since monthly site visits will only confirm and not remedy this concern, and do not demonstrate how additional construction material (lattice) makes the tower and blades less visible, particularly at the top half portion of the tower where the blades are visible over the existing buildings and tree lines and not screened from view. The applicant owns other parcels within Suffolk County either being used or available for an experimental energy generating purposes, including some that are already improved with public utility structure uses. It Is not disputed that other areas within the Town or County are available for purchase or lease to house such an experimental project. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections,the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The particular site chosen by applicant Is an established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and existing agricultural activities. A Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W. Tooker Park are all located orrPeconic Lane near the proposed facility. The proposed facility will be • Page 4-May 20,2004 • • , Appl.No.5432v-UPAftyspan/Osprey 75-1-20.1,202 at Peconic 6. The proposed wind turbine would Increase noise levels at the nearby residence by 1.3 dBA to a background noise level of approximately 49.7 dBA (ref. 238 of EA). Maximum noise levels from the blades of the proposed wind turbine occur during periods when high winds occur. The applicant stated that the maximum sound power level Is 101 decibels of noise from the proposed wind turbine. During periods of high winds, ambient noise levels tend to be higher. (Pgs. 2-37,238 EA). RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B,motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando,and duly carried,to DENY the variance, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva(Chairwoman),Tortora, and Orlando. Nay: Member Dinizio. (Absent was Member rim hringer.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-13) RUTH D.OLIVA,CHAIRWOMAN Approved for Filing 51 SW04 Page 3—May 20,2004 .• Appl.No.5432v—LIPAIKeyspanlOaprey 75-1.20.1,20.2 at Peconic visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center and the Main Road and give an "Industrial" appearance. The proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure Is not consistent with the surrounding rural character of this area, and the proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view over the surrounding farm lands and open spaces, Impacting and Interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. It is conceded that the proposed turbine will Increase noise and vibration levels In the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant is proposing a wind turbine structure at a height of 125 feet, Instead of the code's height limitation of 18 feet, as an experiment over a 20-year time period. At the public hearing, the Board asked the applicant whether the turbine could be reduced in height, and no proof was offered to show whether a lower structure (wind turbine)was in good faith planned and constructed at any other locations, for any periods of times, with alternative designs or at an alternative, lower height. Also, the applicant has not demonstrated a current public need for the height of this structure at 125 feet to serve areas within the town. The applicant did not present detailed evidence as to which sites could be or may have been considered in its analysis. It was not adequately demonstrated that this particular agricultural site is the only place it can put a wind turbine, and why a full 125 ft. height instead of an alternative lower height is necessary. 3. The variance requested is substantial in relation to the code requirement. The height requested is 107 feet greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, resulting in a variance greater than 500%. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created. The code provisions were in effect prior to applicant's plan to purchase and build this structure, knowing that the proposed structure Is not a public necessity serving the town, and knowing that the structure is experimental, and that the height exceeds the code at 125 feet in height. 5. Information has been submitted to suggest that grant of the relief requested will have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. This particular site chosen by applicant is a well-established vineyard with at least 49 acres of open space and agricultural winery. Also, the adjoining residential and agriculturally zoned uses (landscape nursery, farmland, single-family dwellings) are expanding. The proposed 125 ft. high wind turbine structure is not consistent with the surrounding rural and residential character of this area. A Town Recreation Center, Jean W. Cochran Park, and Robert W.Tasker Park are all located on Peconic Lane near the proposed facility. The proposed facility will be visible across the fields between the Peconic Recreation Center and the Main Road and give an "Industrial" appearance. The proposed 125 ft. high structure will create a distinctly commercial view,visible from the nearby homes and over the surrounding open farm lands and other open spaces, Impacting and Interfering with the historical and rural vistas on the New York State designed Scenic Byway, and the Town of Southold's major east-west thoroughfare. KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 TONI L.FINGER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HocHE 75008 TEL (212)715-9239 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 Fax (212)715-8000 Fax(33-1)44 09 46 01 tfinger@kramerlevin.com April 5, 2004 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mark Wolfgang New York State Department of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Wolfgang: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Town of Southold Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic (the"Project") and Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. LIPA, through its agent Keyspan Electrical Services, LLC ("Keyspan"), has leased a portion of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard for this purpose. LIPA is acting as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). LIPA's environmental consultant,AKRF, Inc. prepared an environmental assessment ("EA"), analyzing the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine in October 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson,Pope &Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised the EA in March 2004. At the request of the Planning Board, we are forwarding a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your records. On March 15, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non- significance, which was provided to the involved agencies on March 15, 2004, is also enclosed for your records. ( 32331448J Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Pnisner Milan -Rome London •Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Mr. Mark Wolfgang April 5, 2004 Page 2 Please do not hesitate to contact me or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (212) 715-8087, if you have any questions or require further documentation. Very truly yours, // Toni L. Fin r Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon(by FedEx w/o encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/o encl.) KU 2331 U8.1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022- 3852 TONI L.FINGER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-9239 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAx (212)715-8000 Fax (33-1)44 09 46 01 tfinger@kramerlevin.com April 2, 2004 D E P E BY FEDERAL EXPRESS r APR .I 2001 Ms. Ruth Oliva Chair, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals So::thold Town Southold Town Hall p1pn7i7d-- 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 1 1 97 1-0959 Re: Lone Island Power Authority - Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Oliva: Enclosed please find one original and four copies of the Long Island Power Authority's memorandum in further support of its applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception and a height variance. Very truly yours, Toni L. Finger Enclosure cc: Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Scott DeSimone, Esq. (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Bruno Semon (by FedEx w/encl.) Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. (by FedEx w/encl.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/encl.) K ,2331197.1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Pnisner Milan "Rome London`Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP �5 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 PARIS TONI L. FINGER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 ASSOCIATE TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 TEL (212)715-9239 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 Ot FAx (212)715-8000 tfinger@kramerlevin.com March 24, 2004 D — r L jT I�D BY FEDERAL EXPRESS LIAR 2 5 2u�4 Mr. Gerald Newman Southold Town Suffolk County Planning Department Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Building, 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 1600 Hauppague, NY 11788-0099 Re: Long Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Newman: We represent the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Town of Southold Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic (the "Project") and Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as `lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency status and directed its consultant,AKRF, Inc., to prepare an Environmental Assessment(`,EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. We understand that the EA was provided to you by the Planning Board in November 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant,Nelson,Pope & Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your records. These documents were circulated to the involved agencies on March 5, 2004. On March 15, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non- KI3'232%34,1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance. Berwin Leighton Paisner London •Brussels Milan•Rome KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Mr. Gerald Newman March 24, 2004 Page 2 significance, which was provided to the involved agencies on March 15, 2004, is also enclosed for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (212) 715-8087, if you have any questions or require further documentation. Very truly yours, r Toni L. Fingers' Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon (by FedEx w/o encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/o encl.) KL3:332WU.1 03/23/2004 14:08 FAX 212 715 800 0 RRAMER LEVIN LLP • �1001i002 p � C E E vs KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP D 919 THIRD AVENUE NEWYORK NY 10022 MAR 2 4 2004 (212)715.9100 49111 All Fax Department: (212)715-9191 a 11111;PUP Fax Number: (212)7154000 FROM: Toni L. Finger DATE: March 23,2004 PHONE: (212) 715-9239 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT COMPANY FAx No. PHONE NO. 1. Bruno Semon Town of Southold 631.765.3136 631.765.1938 Total number of pages including this page: 2 The oocuwents ac&oMpauving this 1'eceimile transmission are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain jQEbtm lion that is privileged and c . If you arc not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in mot, please notify us immediately by telephone.-Thank you. Re: I-IPA .03/AHK 2J 4 11:09 Fb 212N71 ktt 8000 nrdsa LEVIN L.LP Rloo2ioo2 M All INC. FAX N0, 63f3796 P. 02/02 NAKIAF Fnvlronmental and Planning Consultants 222 Middle Country Raad,Sulte 314 D Smithtown,NY 11787 D te-l:031 265-0735 fdx:031265.3790 MAR 2 4 -,nw wwvtnkrtrom March 16,2004 sonthOld sown Planning?ovl f ichard Q.Loland, Parbler Krauror Lavin Naftalis &Frarkel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York,NY 10022-3852 Ro: LIPA-proposed Wind Turbine on ospreys Dominion Vineyard Property In Peconic Dear Mr. Leland: With regard to the comment from a Planning 900rd member on the effect of the wind turbine on noise at tho wino tasting area of the winery, the following tablo shows noise Ievals as a function of distance from the wind turbine, Distance Noise Level 50 ft 66.4 dBA 100 60.4 150 56.9 200 54A 260 52.4 300 50-g TV closest building to the wind turbine Is about 200 feet away from the wind turbine- The Willa tasting arorl of the winery is over 300 foot from the wind turbine. Therefore, the wind turbine would produce apprnxlnintoly 61-54 d8A of noise In that areo. Daydmo ambient noise levels at these locations is apprexhmntely 50-55 dl3A. Therefore, noise from the wind turbine, while producing a barely perceptible Increase In noise IeVels, would not be expected to significantly Increase ambient noise levels at these IncrllIons. (Moreover, operation of vineyard and winery equipment would probably produce higher and more intrusive noise levels.) Sincerely, 1,K72F INC. Stophr,n Rosen,PhD I-Iririripal cc: Jim McAllister cdw/wp AKn F. Irr. • Now York City • White Plains Long Island • Western New York Isalilmoro Washington Arra KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Z 61j— 919 THIRD AVENUE 85 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAx (212)715-8000 Fax (33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramedevin.Com March 15, 2004 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse 2 /� 2 p� 2 Chair, Southold Planning Board D IS C LS 6 U E Southold Town Hall D 53095 State Road 25 MAR 1 6 2004 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ms. Ruth Oliva Southold Town g Board Chair, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Plannin Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority- Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Ms. Oliva: This is to advise the Southold Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals that LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency for the above-referenced project, has determined that the proposed wind turbine will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. A notice of determination of non-significance is enclosed for your records. As indicated in the notice, this determination was based on the Environmental Assessment Form, the Environmental Assessment dated October 2003 and the revised Environmental Assessment dated March 2004,which addressed comments on the original EA provided to LIPA by the Southold Planning Board's environmental consultant. Please do not hesitate to contact Edward J. Grilli at LIPA or Richard G. Leland at Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel LLP (212 715-8087), if you have any questions regarding this determination. Very truly yours, 1 Karen L. Mintzer U3.2327092.1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Morin Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan•Rome London w Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse March 15, 2004 Page 2 Enclosure cc: Mr. Bruno Semon (by FedEx w/encl.) Ms. Linda Kowalski (by FedEx w/encl.) Mr. Edward J. Grilli (by FedEx w/encl.) Richard G. Leland, Esq. (w/encl.) K 3.2327082.1 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Date: March 15, 2004 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"), as lead agency, has determined the proposed action described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Southold Wind Turbine Project SEQR Status: Type 1 _ Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: _Yes X No Description of Action: The construction and operation of a 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Southold, New York. Location: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Southold,New York, SCTM Section 75, Block 1, Lots 20.1 and 20.2. Reasons Supporting This Determination: A long form environmental assessment form ("EAF")was completed in October 2003. hi addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment ("EA")was prepared in October 2003 and revised in March 2004 to address comments provided by the Town of Southold Planning Board. A determination of significance was issued by LIPA on March 9, 2004. The EA and the revised EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project related to land use, community character, historic and archeological resources, visual resources, natural resources, hazardous materials,waterfront resources, infrastructure, traffic, air quality, noise, and construction. Based upon the EAF, the EA and the revised EA, LIPA has determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. K 2321468.1 For Further Information Contact Person: Edward J. Grilli Address: Long Island Power Authority 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale,NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail egrilli@lipower.org K 3232W8.1 MAR-15-2004 08:56 NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.01 NELSON,POPE & VOORM&LLC ,fill ENVIRCNMCNrAL • PLANNING • coNSULnNC 6'2' ALT W n'MAN"O .N6LMU,M 11747-210 (6?I)627d666 CAX(6 1)A2756 ,Wv�or'son�eppcom FAX COVER SHEET i o: Bruno Semon Fax: 765.3136 l5 l V D From Eric Arneson M 1 nn L:UY Dare: March 15, 2004 St-4p�tl Tawn Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Detuoustr NP&V 03434 No, of Pages: (including Cover) Comments: Mr. Semon: Enclosed please find our Environmental Assessment review recommendations for the above referenced project. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (631) 427-5665. Sincerely, Eric Arnesen MAR-15-2004 06:57 NELSON,POPE.LLP 516 425 1257 P,02 • II1 NBLBON, POPE & VOORMIa, LLC CNVIRONMENTAL PI,q NNINO CONOULTIN6 CMARGS J.J069P 16,CEP.A NIA,PETMURJ.RTGI NgL Pi.•VIpTq)BEAT,P.E :DEGPNa, .RAM PPL•TWWAS a-NE(AD. E P.E. PAUL M,RACL RW.•Tf10MA3 r.lal)f],P.E. March 11,2004Fine I V ETown of Southold Planning BoardDSouthold Town Hall 53095MainRoad 5 2004Southold,New York i 1971-0959 Attu: Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse-Chair Town BoardRe: LIPA W Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Recommendations NP&V#03434 Dear Nis.Woodhouse: At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the revised and resubmitted Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by AKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants (AKRF) and dated March, 2004 for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 6NYCRR Part 61i.9(a)(2)(i). Previously AKRF submitted an initial draft of the EA in October, 2003 and based on our review of the document and the SEQRA regulations we believed that the document was insufficient as a decision-nuking tool and submitted several comments to be addressed in a letter dated January 19,2003. AKRF has responded to these comments in a letter dated March 5,2004 and prepared a revised EA. Based or;our review of the resubmission we find that it adequately addresses all of the previous deficiencies of the initial document and recommend that the Planning Board accept the EA as complete to be used for the purpose of reaching a determination of significance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON,POPE&VOORHts,LLC Eric Amesen,RPG Project Menuer les J oor 's,CEP,ATCP Manz Partner 012 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE. NY 11747_ !196 (834)407-BBEB PA (021)A"-GpEO WWW.NELBONPOPE.CCM TOTAL P.02 NELSON, POPE &. VOORHIS, LLC 'II ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTING CHARLES J.VOORHIS,CEP.AICP•ARTHUR J.KOERBER,P.E.•VICTOR BERT,P.E. JOSEPH R.EPIFANIA,P.E.•ROBERT G.NELSON,JR.,P.E. PAUL M.RACZ,P.L.S.•THOMAS F LEMBO,P.E. March 11, 2004 Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-0959 Attn: Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse- Chair Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Recommendations NP&V#03434 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the revised and resubmitted Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by AKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants (AKRF) and dated March, 2004 for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 6NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(2)(i). Previously AKRF submitted an initial draft of the EA in October, 2003 and based on our review of the document and the SEQRA regulations we believed that the document was insufficient as a decision-making tool and submitted several comments to be addressed in a letter dated January 19, 2003. AKRF has responded to these comments in a letter dated March 5, 2004 and prepared a revised EA. Based on our review of the resubmission we find that it adequately addresses all of the previous deficiencies of the initial document and recommend that the Planning Board accept the EA as complete to be used for the purpose of reaching a determination of significance. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON,POPE& VOORHIs,LLC p � � 1161111 1111 D Eric Amesen, RPG ' 6 T Project Man er Southob Tows Plano Baas arles J. oor is, CEP,AICP Managi =er 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAO, MELVILLE. NY 11747 - 2166 [631)427-5665 FAX(631)427-5620 WWW.NELSONPOPE.CCM KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 FAXTEL (212)715-8000 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 kmi (212) rameri00 FAx (33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerievin.com March 5, 2004 BY HAND D u inn; D MAR =�� Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse '- Chair, Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall Southold Town 53095 State Road 25 Plannin Board Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Lone Island Power Authority-Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its applications to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and operate a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Southold. In August 2003, LIPA notified both the Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency status and directed its consultant, AKRF, Inc., to prepare an Environmental Assessment ("EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was circulated to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant, Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC ("NP&V"). In response to those comments, LIPA has revised the EA. We enclose a copy of the revised EA and a related cover letter from AKRF, Inc. for your review. For your convenience, we will deliver a copy of the enclosed documents to NP&V as well. LIPA intends to make a SEQRA determination of significance regarding the proposed wind turbine by March 15, 2004. Accordingly, to the extent that the Planning Board or NP&V KL}.2324865.i Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan-Rome London-Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS ANKEL LLP i Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse March 5, 2004 Page 2 has any additional comments regarding LIPA's environmental review of the proposed wind turbine, we request that such comments be provided to LIPA, or its counsel, prior to that date. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Ms. Ruth Oliva Mr. Bruno Semon(w/enclosures) KLl:2324865.1 AK Environmental and Planning Consultants 222 Middle Country Road,Suite 314 Smithtown,NY 11787 tel: 631 265-0735 fax:631 265-3796 www.akrfcom March 5, 2004 Ms.Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chair, Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA—Proposed Wind Turbine, Response to Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC Environmental Assessment Review Comments Dated January 19,2004 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We are the environmental consultants that prepared the October 2003 Environmental Assessment(EA)on behalf of LIPA in connection with the proposed wind turbine to be constructed on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. We have reviewed Nelson, Pope, & Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) comments on the EA, which were submitted to the Town of Southold Planning Board on January 19, 2004. On LIPA's behalf, we offer the following responses to those comments. The EA has also been modified to reflect the responses to NP&V's comments. The new text has been highlighted to aid in your review of the EA enclosed herewith. Fi ures: NP&V Comment 1: In Chapter 1, Section D it is stated that five (5) sites in Suffolk County were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Figure 1-3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered one (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional site omitted from the total. Response: Figure 1-3 has been revised to show that five sites were considered as part of the initial LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project. Section B Land Use, Zoning and Community Facilities Probable Impact Land Use Project Site pane 24 Ill NP&V Comment 2: It is stated that the proposed wind turbine would not conflict with the character of the general area immediately adjacent to or within the general area of the project site since historically,wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. While it is recognized that windmills have been and are still located on the eastern end of Long Island their use has been partially or directly related to the activities occurring on each farm which with they are associated. It is apparent that the placement of a wind AKRF, Inc. • New York City • White Plains • Long Island • Western New York • Baltimore / Washington Area Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse • 2 • March 5,2004 turbine at the subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Dominion Vineyards with the exception of an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kilowatt hours(kwh) issued to the land owner. In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with windmills historically utilized on the east end of Long Island. Several of these structures which still exist in village and hamlets of Long Island (i.e., Sag Harbor, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer a much different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice tower wind turbine would not offer. As a result the proposed structure may present visual characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic normally associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sections which state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical use of windmills on farms within Long Island. Response: LIPA acknowledges that the proposed wind turbine is different in appearance from historic windmills. However, as analyzed in the EA, the proposed action does not pose significant impacts with regard to land use and zoning or visual resources. The EA has been revised accordingly in response to this comment. Pages 24 through 2-10 NP&V Comment 3: Analysis of probable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a new-type of windmill structure, different in context, design, and function than historical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions). • The setback to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual character,noise, safety, and aesthetics. • Setback to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflicts. • The configuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and future use of the subject parcel. Response: Long Island, according to "The Windmills of Long Island" author Robert J. Hafiier, is an ideal place for harnessing the steady wind from the ocean and bays. Many windmills were built and still exist on Long Island, particularly on the East End and are part of the wooden technology of the past. hi fact, the South Fork of eastern Long Island contains the greatest number of surviving windmills in the United States. Windmills were a vital necessity to early settlers of Long Island just as electricity is to current inhabitants. The windmills were constructed to produce energy to mill grain, saw wood, pump water, and do various other jobs. The wind turbine is being proposed as part of LIPA's Clean Air Initiative to create needed electricity for modern day technology without burning fossil fuels. So while different in size and design, they share a common theme. The wind turbine is proposed to be located on a 4.5-acre lot which is part of a 50-acre site owned by Osprey's Dominion Vineyard. Development rights for approximately 46 acres Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse • 3 • March 5,2004 of this property have been sold to Suffolk County ensuring that this property adjacent to the proposed wind turbine will remain undeveloped. The nearest residential zoning district is an R-80 zoning district, which is over 600 feet away. Lots in an R-80 zoning district must be a minimum of 2-acres. Setback requirements in R-80 zoning districts, as in other Southold zoning districts,are designed to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses by requiring appropriate distances between developments. The location of the proposed wind turbine on the central portion of a 50-acre site, in conjunction with the setbacks required for development of properties in adjacent zoning districts, ensures that the wind turbine is an adequate distance from any residential development that may occur in the future. Accordingly, there are no potential land use conflicts. The EA has been revised accordingly, as indicated above,to address these comments. NP&V Comment 4: The statement on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surrounding the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned" goes beyond a rationale conclusion based on the information presented. It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A-C zoned properties. Response: It was not the intention of the statement on page 2-6 to draw the conclusion that the proposed use fosters the preservation of the agricultural use solely because it is a historically consistent structure. There were a number of factors which resulted in the conclusion that the wind turbine is consistent with existing land uses and encourages the continued use of agricultural land. The Long Island Farm Bureau, a function of which is to preserve agricultural lands, and LIPA jointly identified potential agricultural sites for placement of these facilities. A requirement of the program is that the wind turbines be located on agricultural property. It is reasonable to conclude that the Long Island Farm Bureau would not support the wind turbine demonstration program if the program was incompatible with agricultural uses. The statement on page 2-6 has been modified to address this comment. NP&V Comment 5: The statement on page 2-7 referring to four(4) vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generation information on page 2-22. This information should be reconciled. Response: It is anticipated that a maximum of four vehicle trips per month would be generated as a result of this project. This comment has been addressed on pages 2-7,2-10, and 2-22. NP&V Comment 6: With regard to the information presented in response to "Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate, and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof" the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Response: No expansion is anticipated. Comment noted and addressed on page 2-8. NP&V Comment 7: Statements on page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further support as indicated above. Response: Comment and prior comments have been noted.The EA has been modified to provide the necessary support. Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse • 4 • March 5,2004 NP&V Comment 8: With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously indicated. Response: Comment has been addressed as stated above on pages 2-7,2-10,and 2-22. NP&V Comment 9: Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located within the boundaries of the property, "...which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Response: LIPA has committed to providing landscaping on the publicly visible sides (i.e., southern and western) of the proposed wind turbine. The northern and eastern sides face the vineyards, which are not accessible to the public. Though different in size, structure, and materials from the typical wooden windmills historically associated with Long Island farms, the proposed wind turbine would be a modernized structure consistent with current farm land uses.The EA has been revised accordingly. NP&V Comment 10: Page 2-10 indicates that the facility is "...consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Response: The proposed facility is consistent with the existing development on the site and will be located on only 0.02 acres of land that is now vacant. The proposed wind turbine project is not inconsistent with agricultural uses or the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. Specifically, the project would not degrade or consume natural resources or features, or prevent the opportunity to continue the use of farm practices in the area. This comment has been addressed on pages 2-11 and 2-30 of the EA. NP&V Comment 1l: With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with the architectural features of"... the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood." Response: While different in size and appearance from historic windmills, the proposed facility would be consistent with adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The wind turbine, while visually and physically different in height and appearance from windmills historically associated with agricultural uses, does not conflict with the existing site uses. This comment has been addressed on pages 2-8,2-10,and 2-11. Section C Historic and Archeological Resources Archeological Resources Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project,page 2-15 ¶4 NP&V Comment 12: It is stated that the proposed location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P 1B investigation and that no archeological resources would be impacted by the propose project since the tower still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil types.Upon inspection of the site, it was observed that the Ms. Jerilyn B.Woodhouse • 5 • March 5,2004 proposed tower will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether this portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farming activities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find the information from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage 113 Archeological Assessment. It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage 1B assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Response: The shovel test pits, while not at the exact location of the proposed footprint for the wind turbine, are believed to be at a close enough distance to warrant the same conclusions for this location, which has been cleared, graded, and planted with turf grass. No archaeological resources are expected to be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. To ensure that there are no unanticipated impacts during disturbance of this area for the purpose of constructing the wind turbine, staff from Historical Perspectives, Inc., will be on-site to monitor the excavation for the purpose of identifying any possible archeological resources. Section D Visual Resources.Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project pace 2 16 NP&V Comment 13: Visual impact assessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar facilities in the context of the area and/or corridor subject to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, sensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area, but the exact height and location of this utility are not provided, and the zoning, surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different from a Police cell tower. Finally, the pre-existence of a Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape,particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural,A-C zoned location that may be different from other more intense use areas. The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and graylblue colors would blend into the surroundings" does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements at the end on the section, "...the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility" and "Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely affected"are not fully supported given the information requested above. It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent or similar to a Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse • 6 • March 5,2004 flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the tower to be of a different character and larger than that to which is being compared. Please provide additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind turbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Response: Section D, "Visual Resources," of the modified EA, has been completely revised to follow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Program Policy (DEP-00-2, July 31, 2000) entitled "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts."The modified EA addresses each comment listed above. Section G Waterfront Revitalization,Town of Southold LWRF Pa e 2 20 NP&V Comment 14: Insufficient information is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. Response: As concluded in EA Section D, "Visual Resources," the proposed facility would not significantly impair the visual landscape as experienced from any scenic or historic resource or interfere with or reduce the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of any inventoried scenic, historic, or locally significant resource. Accordingly,the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. NP&V Comment 15: With regard to Policy 12, please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Response: A review of Policy 12 does not indicate other use restrictions that would be appropriate for agricultural land surrounding the wind turbine. Section H Infrastructure,Existing Conditions Sanitary Sewage Pa e 2 23 NP&V Comment 16: It is stated that since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However, the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a visitor's center which discharges some volume of sanitary effluent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site and method of disposal. Response: The project site is proposed to be sited on 0.02 acres of an approximately 50-acre site. The existing winery/visitor center currently contributes to sewage flow, however, the project site is an existing grass field that does not currently contribute to any sanitary discharge and would not in the future with the proposed project. This comment has been addressed on page 2-32. Section I Traffic,Page 2-23 NP&V Comment 17: It is stated that the turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that there would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Please provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. Response: The trip generation figure of four vehicle trips per month is based on LIPA's experience with the existing wind turbine facility in the Town of Riverhead and from the Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse . 7 • March 5,2004 recommended maintenance schedule provided by the wind turbine manufacturer. This documentation is included as Attachment D to the modified EA. Section K Noise,Noise Prediction Methodology,naves 2 27 and 2 28 NP&V Comment 18: The basis for the maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the source of this approximate sound power level, and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation.Noise monitoring station locations and receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aerial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information concerning methodology for decibel addition and support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exists,based on zoning. Response: (See bulleted items below) • As identified in the EA on page 2-37,the source of the sound power level was identified by the manufacturer based upon field measurements of existing installations. • Design specifications for the 50 kW wind turbine are included in Attachment D to the modified EA. The AOC 15150 has been designed as a low-noise emission turbine. The sources of noise are the drive train and the aerodynamic emissions of the rotor as it passes the supporting structure. A diagram of the drive train assembly is also included in Attachment D. • A new figure,Figure 2-10,has been included in the EA which depicts the location of the proposed wind turbine and the noise monitoring receptor. • Predicated noise level calculations have been included as Attachment E to the modified EA. • Based on the existing zoning,no residential structures can be built any closer to the project site due to setback and other site requirements. Additional Information NP&V Comment 19: Mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA. Mitigation to be considered would include the following: • Modified tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or provide more appropriate historical context. • Modified location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or,an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the facility within the parcel.Property configuration,receptors,wetlands areas, and future potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Landscape screening at base of tower to"soften"mass of structure, screen fence, and partially screen base of tower. • Conditions in balance of property within proximity to tower to maintain access control,and improve safety within"fall zone"and immediate area. Other mitigation which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary. Ms.Jerilyn B.Woodhouse • 8 • March 5,2004 Response: SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Since no significant adverse environmental impacts were identified in the EA, mitigation measures were not included as part of this analysis. In addition, several of the mitigation measures suggested are not practicable or are unnecessary. For example, the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested as the wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. Also, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process, which is described in the EA. The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to safety, the wind turbine would be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly,no safety mitigation measures would be necessary. Miscellaneous Comments NP&V Comment 20: Inspection of the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where occasional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at the winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discuss any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design, or institutional controls to protect employees and/or visitors to the winery. Response: The EA has been revised to include the specific safety measures that LIPA intends to undertake as part of the proposed project. Such safety measures, identified on page 2-1 of the EA and illustrated on the proposed site plan submitted to the Planning Board on October 20, 2003, include an 8-foot chain link barbed wire fence that would be locked at all times with the exception of maintenance and emergency visits. The fence would be screened from public view with landscape plantings. We trust that the above and the modified EA are responsive to NP&V's comments on the EA. Sincerely, AKRF, 130C. pAa:;;V� Ices P. McAllister ice President cc: Ms. Ruth Oliva(w/enclosure) Mr. Bruno Semon(w/enclosure) Ms. Linda Kowalski(w/enclosure) Mr. Mark Dougherty(w/enclosure) Mr.Frederick Peritore(w/enclosure) Richard G. Leland, Esq.(w/enclosure) P.O. Box 1179 53095 Route 25 Southold Town Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 765-1938 Planning Board Fax: (631) 765-3136 To: Karen Mintzer From: Valerie ScopaZtCaroi Fax: 2121715-8291 Pages: 4 - including cover Phone: Date: 3/5/04 Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project CC: Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Requested 00iO4/04 THU 14:08 F.*i 2127158000 KRAMER LEVIN 002 . 0 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE ✓6 I NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3862 �v L— KAREN L.MINTZER PAIea ASSOCIATE 47,AvENuE HOcHa 76008 no. (212)716-7775 ra (33-1)44 09 48 00 EAx (212)716430M FAN(33-1144 0B 48 01 kmintzlrQkm 06V1n.0om March 4,2004 rl y Planning Board',Staff Planning Board!of the Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 State Ro4d 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority Application for Site Plan Anorova)_for Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Sir or Madam: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority("LiPA") in connection with the above-referenced application. I have been advised by Bruno Semon that,on February 26,2004 the Planning Board Char,Jerilyn Woodhouse,sent a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals Chair,Ruth Oliva,regarding LIPA's application. Please provide us with a copy of that letter by fax at your earliest convenience, so that we may comprehend and/or respond to any concerns expressed therein. My fax number is(212)715.8291. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, i/ Kam L. Mintzer cc: Mr. Bruno Semoa u2.2224700 AjAr' &Stadia Sano Maria Alliance:Rnwin Leighton Pa4w Milan-Rome London-¢r 2111 03/04iO4 TRG 1.4:08 FAX 2127159000 KRASER LEVIN �p01 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 019 THiRo AVENUE NEw Yowt NY 10022 (212)71"100 Fax Department: (212)715-9191 Fax Number: (212)715-8000 FROM: Karen L. Mintzer DATE: March 4,2004 pgONE: (212) 715-7775 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: REOPIENT COMPANY FAX No. PaoNeNo. 1. Bruno Semon Town of Southold 631.765.3136 631.765.1938 Total ntunber of pages including this page: 2 thi i f you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissraintion of the communication i° strictly prohibited If you have received this communication is error. please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you, Re: LIPA PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �gUFFO(,�c JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE �� al P.O. Box 1179 Chair Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 RICHARD CAGGIANO w : Southold, New York 11971-0959 M CR �+' • Telephone(631) 765-1938 KENNETH L. WARS O Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN HESI ORDS 'yi�Oj �aO� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: February 26, 2004 To: Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman Zoning Board of Appeals From: Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson Planning Board (� Re: Request for comments on Osprey Dominion/LIPA SCTM#1000-75-1-20.1 &20.2 Appeal'# 5450 and 5452 In response to your request for comments, the Planning Board reviewed the aforenoted appeal at its February 25rd work session and determined the following: 1. The Planning Board had environmental concerns, which it asked LIPA to address. A copy of our consultant's letter outlining those concerns was sent to you on February 3, 2004. We are waiting for LIPA to respond to these concerns. A copy of their response will be sent to you when we receive it. 2. The Planning Board also solicited the input of the Transportation Commission as to the potential scenic impacts of the proposed turbine. Attached is a copy of their response indicating their concerns. 3. The original proposal of LIPA was to site the turbine on land further north. However, development rights on that portion of the site had been removed. As a result, the location of the turbine was changed. The Planning Board has some concerns about the new location for the following reasons: a. The parking area behind the tasting room lies within the fall zone. This site is used for parking and outdoor activities by the winery tasting room. b. The winery has indicated that it may expand the dimensions of the conservatory building. Attached for your information is a memo explaining their proposal. SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION COMIMISSION TONG INN 53005 M*NOW SOOtlroW,NY ILOT1-059 r"($31)TW 1636 W(WI)T6rW 136 Date: October 14,2003 To: Southold Planning Board From: N@boysha R Btashich,Cbairman Y�iti �--X4 l/— Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project _ As you are aware, Sit 25 is a New York State Scenic Bywa so designated by New York State Legislation in 2002. As such, the viewshed along this road must be protected given the scenic, historic and cultural importance of the old"King's Highway." The proper project is to be located within the viewshed 0 SR 25. The Commission is concerned that the design and,particularly thefplacement,of such a turbine would hate a lasting negative effect on the Byway. J During its review,the Planning Board should ensure Guit the viewshed be as minimally impacted as possible. E EWE � D OCT 1`5 �_003 Southold Town Plannin Board 1 PLANNING BOARD MEMOS BENNETT ORLOiWSKI,JR. P.O.Box 1179 Chairman h� Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 RICHARD CAGGIANO Southold, New York 11971-0959 = WILLIAM J.CREMERS 0 Telephone(631) 765-1938 KENNETH L.EDWARDS .y `� Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN H.S1DOR Ol 41 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: January 12, 2004 To: Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector, Valerie 5copaz, Town Planner From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Interoffice communication on the New Amended Concept Site Plan for Osprey Dominion Conservation alteration and addition. 44075 Main Road, Peconic, NY Zoning District AC, SCTM: 1000-75.-1-20.1 On 01/05/04,we received a request for information from Mr. Tom Stevenson. He had questions about a preliminary.site plan detailing an alteration and addition of the existing conservatory building of 1,357 sq. ft. to include a 1,350 sq.ft. first floor addition and a new second floor storage area of 781 sq.ft.on a 4.46 acre parcel in the AC zone. The site plan proposes a change in parkinglfrom 31 spaces required to 36 spaces provided. Mr. Stevens indicated that he had been referred to the Planning Board by Damon Rallis for a site plan application and no other filing requirements are needed with your department. Please confirm that the p posed amended site plan is Town Code compliant and indicate what will be needed for the Building Department? The PB will review this submittal at the work session tonight. An active incomplete concept file is in the Planning Boards Office for review. In reference to the',above concept site plan, please review and forward any additional comments or concerns. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, Planning Board Members, VL BOHLER ENGINEERING, Pc. CIVIL&CONSULTING ENGINEEf�S■PROJECT MANAGERS■ENVIRONMENTAL&SITE PLANNER$■MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS 201 North Se ice Road, Suite 104, Melville, NY 11747■ (516)872-2000 Teiefax(516)872-2007 TRANSMITTAL VIA HAND DELIVERY To: Town of Southold planning Department RE: LIPA/Osprey Dominion 53095 Main Road 44075 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Peconic, New York Attention: Bruno Semon Date: February 23, 2004 JOB#: N02482 THESE ARE ❑ For approval®For your use❑As requested❑ For review and comment❑Approved as submitted TRANSMITTED ❑Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections❑As discussed ❑ For Signatures WE ARE SENDING ❑ $hop drawings ❑ Copy of letter ❑Vellums ®Attached ❑ Diskette ❑ Sepias YOU COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 9 2/19/04 SP-1 Site Plan (Rev. 2) 1 2/23/04 3 Pages Resubmission Letter from Attorney Remarks: Enclosed please find the above referenced documents for your review. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. tF'E8 V' l5 2 3 �004 Southold Town Pinning Board Copy To: Signed: t Via Fed Ex: Karen Mintzer, Kramer Levin Naftalis&Frankel LLP (w/encl.) s h Colucci Project Manager E-ma . Jcoluccina bohleren=t com \\NYDRA W ING I\BENY2SYS\LIPA\N02482\Transmittals\2004\022304.doc/cf KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP P73 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L. MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 Fax (212)715-8000 FAx(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kramerievin.com February 23, 2004 - � JWE BY HAND ' �-- I I F F B 23 2004 D Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse Chairperson, Planning Board of the Town of Southold Southold Town Town Hall Planning BoarH 53095 Main Road Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority- Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We represent LIPA in connection with its application for site plan approval for the above- referenced project. We have reviewed the February 4, 2004 letter from James Richter, the Town Engineer, to you regarding Mr. Richter's review of the site plan prepared by Bohler Engineering, P.C. dated October 10, 2003. This letter responds to the three questions raised by Mr. Richter in that letter. First, Mr. Richter questions what the extension of property lines on the easterly side of Lot 20.1 represent. According to our engineer, the survey of the property indicates that the boundaries of Lot 20.1 are irregular and do in fact extend in a northeasterly direction as indicated on the site plan and, further, that this portion of Lot 20.1 was not part of the property for which development rights to Suffolk County were sold. Mr. Richter's second comment refers to an 8,000 square foot structure on Lot 20.2 for which site plan approval was granted in 2002. That structure was indeed constructed. For the Planning Board's information and for illustrative purposes, we enclose nine copies of a revised site plan that includes that portion of Lot 20.2 on which this structure is located. Please note that the scale of the enlarged site plan has been changed from 1"=20' to 1"=30' to allow room to show this structure on adjoining Lot 20.2. Mr. Richter's third comment notes the existence of metal trailers that extend slightly across the boundary of Lot 20.1 to Lot 20.2. We understand from the owner of Osprey's Dominion Vineyard that these trailers predate the sale of the development rights for Lot 20.2 to Suffolk County. We do not believe the slight protrusion of these trailers onto Lot 20.2 is K 32321738,1 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan 'Rome London 'Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS AANKEL LLP • Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse February 23, 2004 Page 2 relevant to the Planning Board's analysis of the site plan proposed for Lot 20.1. Please let us know if you believe otherwise. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon(w/enclosure) Mr. Joseph Colucci Richard G. Leland, Esq. KU 2321738 1 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS ANKEL LLP Ms. Jerilyn Woodhouse February 23, 2004 Page 3 bcc: Mr. Mark Dougherty(w/enclosure) Mr. Frederick Peritore (w/enclosure) Mr. James McAllister(w/enclosure) KU-2321738.1 B�/vL APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman P.O.Box 1179 Gerard P. Goehripger Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone(631) 765-1809 Vincent Orlando ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 James Dinizio http://soudioldtown.northfork.net TOWN MEMO BOARD OF APPEALS D E Cc' E U M G TO: Planing Board FEB 2 M: Rut 3 2004 D FRO Oliva, Chairwoman, Zoning Board of Appeals DATE: Feb uary 23, 2004 Southold ia hold oa SUBJECT: Request for Comments Presently, the Bo rd of Appeals is reviewing the following application for a February 26, 2004 public hearing: NAME T # ZBA BD VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER & NOD DAT Z NE DATE/S OSPREY 751- 5450 8/26/03 SPECIAL 10/1 /03 BOHLER DOMINION / 20 & 5452 12/16/03 EXCEPTION ENGINEERING, LIPA 2 FOR PUBLIC PC —TJ Z UTILITY USE FILAZZOLA ON 4.4 ACRE WINERY PARCEL & PUBLIC UTILITY FOR 2ND PRINCIPAL USE FOR 100' WIND TURBINE TOWER & 25' ANTENNA The Planning Board may be involved regarding a pre-submissio review under the site plan regulations Of the Zoning Code. Your comments regarding the following are requested: • Scenic byway Thank you. T • • P5 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 !V /:M:4S RICHARD G. LELAND PC PARTNER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75006 TEL (212)715-6067 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 Fax (212)715-7569 Fax (33-1)44 09 46 01 rleland@kramerievin.com February 9, 2004 BY FAX AND HAND Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chair, Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: LIPA - Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above- referenced project (the "Project"), which is the subject of an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval and applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception use and a height variance. We have reviewed the January 19, 2004 report of the Planning Board's consultant, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC ("NPV"), which contains NPV's comments on the Environmental Assessment("EA")prepared by LIPA's consultant, which was submitted to the Planning Board, as well as the ZBA, in October 2003. LIPA, which is acting as lead agency for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the Project as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), will revise the EA to respond to NPV's comments as described below. Figures - LIPA will revise the EA to clarify the number and location of sites that were considered for the wind turbine demonstration project, of which this Project is a part. Section B Land Use, Zoning and Community Facilities - LIPA will revise the EA to address NPV's comments regarding the historical use of windmills and NPV's specific comments on pages 2-4 through 2-10 of the EA. KL32318614.5 Affiliate, .Skudio Santo Morin Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan -Rome London -Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS 8 FRANKEL LLP • Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse February 9, 2004 Page 2 Section C Historic and Archeological Resources - The EA will be revised to include further discussion regarding the potential archeological impacts resulting from the small change in the proposed location of the Project. Section D Visual Resources - LIPA will revise the EA to provi# additional information regarding its assessment of the Project's potential impacts on visual resources. Section G Waterfront Revitalization - The EA will be revised to address NPV's comments regarding Policies 3 and 12 of the Town of Southold Waterfront Revitalization Plan. Section H Infrastructure - NPV has asked LIPA to provide information regarding the sanitary effluent of the winery, which is located on Block 1, Lot 20.2. As stated in the current EA, the Project, which will be located on Block 1, Lot 20.1, will create no additional sewage flow whatsoever. Accordingly, the sanitary effluent from the already existing winery is not relevant to the analysis of potential sewage impacts resulting from the construction of the wind turbine. The EA will be revised to clarify this fact. Section I Traffic - The EA will be revised to clarify that, once c nstructed, the Project will generate a maximum of 4 vehicle trips during weekly or biweekly facility checks or monthly or quarterly preventative maintenance visits. The Project will not generate traffic at any other time. Section K Noise, Noise Prediction Methodology- The EA will he revised to provide additional information regarding the source of the predicted maximum sound power level and the details of the noise prediction methodology used. Additional information-NPV asserts that"mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the EA." It is our view that mitigation measures are not required to be included in an EA. SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Moreover, even if LIPA were to consider mitigation measur�s, several of the mitigation measures listed by NPV are impracticable or unnecessary. F r example, the wind turbine tower structure cannot be modified as suggested by NPV, as the,wind turbine has been engineered by the manufacturer to operate safely only if constructed with a steel lattice structure. In addition, it would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20.1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed',areas where wind exposure is maximized. These factors were considered in the initial site]selection process, which is described in the EA. The proposed location of the wind turbine provies proper wind exposure at a maximum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to NPV's comments regarding safety, the wind turb ne will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building code requirements and, accordingly, no safety mitigation measures will be necessary. Miscellaneous Comments - LIPA will address NPV's miscellaneous comments in the revised EA. KL3'.2318614 5 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS ANKEL LLP • Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse February 9, 2004 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Richard G. Leland cc: Mr. Bruno Semon, Southold Planning Board Ms. Linda Kowalski, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Mark Dougherty, LIPA Mr. Frederick Peritore, KeySpan Mr. James McAllister, AKRF Karen Mintzer, Esq. K 3 2319614.5 02%09%2004 11:11 P.1.1 L12 715 6000 KRAMM LEN IN UP Z002 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIs& FRANKEL LLP 7 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW'.ORK,N.Y. 10022-3652 VVV LLL— RICHARD G.LELAND PARS PARTNER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 rat (212)718-8087 Ta (33-1)44094600 W (212)715.7569 r ar(33-1)44 09 46 01 rlelen tl okra me r;ev I n.Zpm February 9,2004 13 FAX E I E I W E Ms. Jerilyn B- Woodhouse FEB — 9 2004 D Chair, Town of outhold Planning Board Southold Town Mall 53095 Main Road Southold Town Southold,New-kork 11971-0959 Plannin Soars Re! 41PA -Proposed Wind Turbine on Ospreys Dominion )me and Prouerty in Peconic Dear Ms. Woo4ouse: We reps gsent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA")in tonne tion with the above- referenced proje�t(the"Project"),which is the subject of an application to the Planning Board for site plan approval and applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception use and a height,variance. We havejreview•ed the January 19, 2004 report of the Planning Board's consultant, Nelson,Pope &,Voorhis,LLC ("NPV"), which contains NPV's corru-neritt on the Environmental Assessment("E )prepared by LIPA's consultant, which was submitted o the Planning Board, as well as the Z A, in October 2003. LIPA,which is acting as lead agen y for purposes of conducting the a ivironmental review ofthe Project as required by the State Environmental Quality Review rket("SEQRA'�, will revise the EA to respond to NPV's Comments as described below. Figpos-L1PA will revise the EA to clarify the number and location of sites that were considered for the wind turbine demonstration project,of which this Projert is a part. Seationo L d Community Facilities-LIPAwill revise the EA to address NPV's comments regarding the historical use of windmills and N V's specific comments on pages 2-4 through 2-10 of the EA. W:23MU> affiG¢rf'Smdin S¢nrn.4f¢ri¢ A(li¢nre:8erwm Lsi3hbrt Prsiaxw Ni!¢n •Rums L mlun I Bmasds 02;08.2004 14:17 Fd3 Y.12 715 6000 KRA-%EY.. LEVLN LLP �001 • KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL:LP S19 THIRD AVENU! tiev,YORK NY 10022 (212)71&9100 Fax Department: (212)715-9191 Fax Number: (212)715-7569 FROM: Richard G. Leland DATE: February 9, 2004 PHONE: (212) 715-�087 PLEASF DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECLP1E.Nr COMPANY FAx No. PstoNFNo. 1. Town o°Southold Socthold Town Hall 631.765.31 6 Total number of pages including this page; 4 The docume>:ta ,vconwaAyamL aj, facsimae mrigmisswu are intended The addmssee and may contain nrf Liz�t i<prJYJ00ed and confidential. If you ere not the intended rneipient you are hm eby notified tbai any dissemination of*he cottt mn1cation is ctly prohibited. If you have received this communication in mcr, please notify us imuediately by teiepbone. Thank you. Re: LIPA .,+;LJl93EA.1 02 09/2004 14'18 FiS 212 715 8010 KRMIEA LEVIN UP Z 003 _ K.RAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS&•FRANKEL LLP • Ms. ?erilyn B. Woodhouse February 9, 2004 Page 2 Section �Historic and Archeological Resources -The EA will be evised to include further diseusstn regarding the potential archeological impacts resulting the small change in the proposed location of the Project. Sect, V' -LIPA will revise the EA to provide dditional informnon regarding its ass ssment of the Project's potential impacts on visual reso es. aectiox4j Waterfront a io - The EA will be revised to ac dress NPW$ comments roger"Policies 3 and 12 of the Town of Southold Waterfro t Revitalization Plan. Section a Infrastructure-NPV has asked LIPA to provide information regarding the sanitary effluent of the winery,which is located on Block 1, Lot 20.2. As stated in the current EA, the?reject,(which w,11 be located on Block 1,Lot 20.1,will create no additional sewage flow whatsoever,. Accordingly,the sanitary effluent from the already existing winery is not relevant to the analysis of potential sewage impacts resulting from the construction of the wind turbine. Tlce EA will be revised to c1 iify thus fact. Section II Traffic -The EA will be:evised to clarify that, once con oted, the Project will generate a maximum of 4 vehicle hips during weekly or biweekly f ility checks or monthly or quarterly preventative maintenance visits. The Project will not general traffic at any other 'time. So' Noise Prediction Metbodaloav-The EA will be revisedw provide additional info ation regarding the source of the predicted maximum SOL utd power level and the details of the .016e prediction methodology used. Additional tic -NPV asserts that"mitigation measures would be appropriate to include in the E ." Tt is our view that mitigation measures are not requir to be included in an EA. SEQRA requires mitigation only when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Moreover,even if LIPA were to consider mitigation measures, several of the mitigation meal res listed by NPV a.-e impracticable or unnecessary. For example,the wind turbire tower strf cture cannot he modified as suggested by NPV, as the w nd turbine has been engineered by thr manufacturer to operate.afely only if constructed witha steel lattice structure. In addition; is would be inappropriate to consider alternate sites for the wind turbine on Block 1, Lot 20,1, as the wind turbine can only operate correctly in unobstructed az as where wind exposure is max zed. These factors were considered in the initial site selection process, which is described in tl e EA, The proposed location of the wind turbine provides proper wind exposure at a mapamum distance from surrounding properties without disturbing any wetland areas. With respect to NP V's comments regarding safety,the wind turbine will be constructed in compliance with)all applicable building code requirements and, according y,no safety mitigation [measures will be neeessary. Miscellaneous Comir ents- LTPA will address NPV's rn,seellaneot�a comments in the rev:sod EA, 02.08,2004 14:18 FAX 212 715 6000 KRAMER LETIN LLP F0 004 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LL? Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse February q, 2004 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours. Richard G. Leland cc AT.Bruno Samon, Southold Planning Board Ms. Lin Kowalsla, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. :vlaf.-Dougherty, LIPA Mr. Frederick Peritore,KeySpan Mr. Jams McAllister, AKRF Karen Mintzer, Esq. KLJ P IBF;.S '. � wFFac `�) � 105 JOSHUA Y. HOIRTON JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. SUPERVISOR ENGINEER TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971 Fax. (516)-765-1366, � �� 1 Tel.(516)-765-1560 OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Jerilyn B. Wood iouse February 4, 2004 Chairperson - P anning Board Town Hall, 530c 5 Main Road Southold, New ork 11971 Re: Osprey Dominion Vineyards—Amended Site Plan LIPA Wind Turbine Application SCTM#: 1000—75—01 —20.1 & 20.2 Dear Mrs. Woodhouse: As per a request from your office, I have reviewed the site plan for the above referenced project. This Si a Plan was prepared by Bohler Engineering, P.C. and was dated 10/10/03. Your letter, dated 1 5/03, indicated that the ZBA is currently reviewing ,the project for zoning issues. Therefore, I will not address the obvious zoning matters associated with this project such as use and location of the p oposed tower. I will, at this time, request explanations of the following: 1. On the enlarged site plan, what do the extension of property lines as shown on the easterly side of lot# 20.1 represent? They appear to extend out into lot#20.2. This is the p 3rt of the property where development rights were sod to Suffolk County. Do these property line indications mean that they were able to alnnex back some of the land preserved by the County? This should be clarified. 2. Back in the year 2002, Osprey Dominion applied for and received site plan approvals for the ir istallation of an 8,000 square foot insulated & condi«ioned commercial warehouse facilil y. This new building was to be located on property where development rights were sold to the County. At the time, this new facility was considered an accessory farm struc ure as determined by the County Farmland Preservation Program. It was to be located approximately 100 feet north of the north/east mer of lot # 20.1. Since this ware iouse is located in the same general area of the prop sed tower, it is recommended that i be shown or indicated on the enlarged site plan. B h the Planning Board and the ZBA should have a reference to the location of this approved facility for their use in delib rating the installation of the new tower. 3. The nlarged Site Plan also indicates the existence of two large Metal Trailers, Electric Box, Concrete Slabs and Slate Walks. Are these items Considered permitted uses on land here development rights have been sold? Has the(Planning Board or the County Fa land Preservation Program permitted this activity for!this Site Plan? If you ha�a any Questions concerning my report, please contact my office. rely, J es . iWet' CC: Peter Harris (Superintendent of Highways) 1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ��SUFFO��YCO • JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE P.O. Box 1179 Chair C y� Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGI O y, • Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J. CRE ERS G Fax (631) 765-3136 KEIMARTIN HEDD RDS y�Ol �aQt' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: Febr✓ary 3, 2004 To: Planning Board Members From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Cj� Re: Upd to on the LIPA Wind turbine at Osprey Dominion 440�5 Main Road Pecpnic, NY SCTM#:1000-75.-1-20.1 & 20.2 This is a requ st for comments on the report from Nelson Pope R Voorhis,LLC. The Z.B.A. is reviewing this at the February meeting. Attached you will find a copy of the or iginal report prepared by N.P.V. dated January 19, 2004, which was received by our office on January 30, 2004. Tentatively ths will be placed on the P.B. work session agenda of February 9, 2004 after thepublic meeting for discussion. The following is a Status on this application: 08/26/03 response to Josh Horton from Valerie Scopaz on request for SEQRA lead agency by L.I.P.A. 10/14/03 Southold Transportation Commission responded with concerns about project. 10/21/03 received a complete site plan application. 10/22/03 received the environmental assessment (EA) reports, from L.I.P.A. 11/03/03 P.B.I reviewed application at work session and acceplted. 11/05/03 rece ved drawings and pictures of project from appli ant. 11/05/03 circ fated the site plan documents to Building Department/Michael Verity, Town ngineer/James Richter, Town Trustees/ Al Kruplski and ZBA/Ruth Oliva 11/05/05 PB sent a copy of EA to Nelson Pope & Voorhis (NPN) for an estimate on environmental services. 11/11/03 N.P.V submitted a report estimate for review by the PB. 11/13/03 Town Trustees responded with a determination the proposed project to be out of Wetland Jurisdiction. 11/17/03 P.BIheld a work session with agreement to accept the estimate and request the applicant to submit payment for the N.P.V report. 11/17/03 referral to Southold Fire District for comments on project. 11/17/03 request from ZBA on comments of appeal in process. 11/19/03 senj a letter to applicant to submit payment for N.P.W. 11/19/03 referral to Suffolk County Planning for comments. 11/19/03 merno sent to ZBA reserving P.B. comments until NIPV report is received. 12/02/03 received a payment from applicant for N.P.V report. ' 12/02/03 Architectural Review Committee held a meeting and:agreed there are no issue in which they can comment on. 12/11/03 received a reply from the Southold Fire District which indicated adequate fire protection and the approval is valid for one year'. 01/20/04 reCE ived a faxed report from N.P.V. and distributed to P.B. for review at next work session. 01/27/04 reCE ived a letter Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP. Requesting the report from N P.V. 01/30/04 recE ived a hard copy of the N.P.V report. 02/02/04 P.B. reviewed the N.P.V. report and agreed to distribute the report as received. 02/03/04 sen� a copy to applicant and ZBA/Ruth Oilva. The complete file is available in the Planning Board Office for',review. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, A, vs, f Enc. � II PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B.WOODIHOUSE P.O. Box 1179 Chair C Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y LLIAM J. Southold, New York 11971-0959 RI CREMERS y, • Telephone (631) 765-1938 KENNE M ED DS G Fax (631) 765-3136 MARTIN H. OR y��1 �� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: February 3, 2004 To: Ms. Oliva, Chairwoman of Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Info. on the proposed site plan for the LIPA Windturbine dt osprey Dominion 440 4 Main Road, Peconic, N.Y. SCl1,M: 1000-75-1-20.1 & 20.2 In reference o the above site plan application, attached you will find a report prepared fro Nelson Pope and Voorhis, LLC. dated January 19, 2004, which was receive by our office on January 30, 2004 and reviews 6 at the work session February 2, 2004. Please keep sus up to date on the advances of this project in your department. Thanking yoy in advance. Cc: file, pb, enc. PLANNING BOARD!MEMBERS ��gUFF01/( JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE P.O. Box 1179 Chair ' C .� Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y Southold, New York 11971-0959 RILLIAMCHARD J. CRE�4 R 1 T Telephone (631) 765-1938 ENNE M J. CRE ERS Fax (631) 765-3136 MARTIN H. SIIPORDS yf,� O`� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 3, 2004 Federick Peri�ore Keyspan 175 East Old Ountry Road Hicksville, NY 11801 Re: LIPA WI dturbine at Osprey Dominion 44075 Main Load Peconic, NY SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 & 20.2 Dear Mr. Per4ore, The Planning Board received the report from N.P.V. dated January 19, 2004 at the office on January 30 2004 and reviewed the report at the work session on February 2, 2004. The Planning Board agreed to distribute the report as received. Attached is a copy of the report for you records. The site plan application will need to include the following to be processed: Please reviewlthe report and respond as required. For your information a copy of this report went to the Town Z.B.A office. If there are an questions you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Res ull lours, Se nl' Senior Site P16 Reviewer CC:frle, pb,zba • • 195 NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING, CONSULTING 572 Walt Whitman Road FAX(631)427-5620 Melville,NY 11747 TO: Town of Southold Date: 28-Jan-04 Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Re: LIPA Wind Turbine P.O.Box 1179 Southold Southold,NY 11971 Job No. NP&V 03434 Attn: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair We are sending you �X Under separate cover Herewith Pick Up By Messenger For Your Review& Comment Approval X As requested X For your use Bid Submission FED EX Quantity Drawtn Title Sheet No. Date 1 Original Environmental Assessment Review Comments Remarks: kJAN C I DVery truly yours, 3 0 2004 NELSON,POPE& VOORHIS,LLC Southold Town By: Eric Arnesen,RPG Plannin Board NELSON, POIbOE S. VOORHIS■ LLC ENVIRONMENTAL / PLANNING CONSULTING CHARLES J.VOORHIS,CEP.AICP•ARTHUR J.KOERBER,P.E.•VICTOR BERT,P.E. JOSEPH R.EPIFANIA,P.E.•ROBERT G.NELSON,JR.,P.E. PAUL M.RACZ,P.L.S.•THOMAS F.LEMBO,P.E. January 19, 200 2 R� 2 LS Town of South E old Planning Board D U Town Hall D 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179 JAN 3 0 2004 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse— Chair Southold Town Planning Boars Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Comments NP&V#03434 Dear Ms. Woodhouse: At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 6NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(2)(i)'. Based on our review of the submitted EA and the SEQRA regulations we believe the document is insufficient as a decision-making tool. This document provides a point-by- point review of the items we recommend for revision in the EA as well as additional requested anal sis: Fi ures In Chapter 1, ection D it is stated that five (5) sites in Suffolk County were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Fig re 1-3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered on (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional site omitted from the total. Section B Lad Use Zonina and Comrannity Facilities Probable Itnipacts, Land Use,Project S ite, Paee 2-4 1: It is stated tha the proposed wind turbine would not conflict with the character of the general area immediately adjacent to or within the general area of the project site since historically, wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. While it is recognized that windmills have been and are still located on the eastern end of Long Island their use has been partially or directly related to the activities occurring on 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE. NV 11747 - 2168 (631)427-5665 FAX CB311 427-5620 WWW.NELSONROPE.COM LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review each farm which with they are associated. It is apparent that the placement of a wind turbine at the subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Domiion Vineyards with the exception of an annual energy credit equal to 25,OOO kilowet hours (kwh) issued to the land owner. In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with w ndmills historically utilized on the east end of Long Island. Several of these structure which still exist in villages and hamlets of Long Island (i.e. Sag Harbor, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer a inuch different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice tower wind turbine would not offer. As a result the proposed structure may present visual characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic norm illy associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sections hick state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical use c IIf wind mills on farms within Long Island. Pale 2-4 throe eh 2-10 i Analysis of p bable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a new-type of windmill structure, different in context, design, and function than historical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions). • The se back to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual charact r, noise, safety and aesthetics. • The se ack to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflic . • The co�figuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and future se of the subject parcel. The statement on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the roposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surroun 'ng the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as resently zoned.", goes beyond a rationale conclusion based on the information pr sented. It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A-C z tied properties. The statement 0n page 2-7 referring to four (4) vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generation information on page 2-22. This information should be reconciled. With regard to the information presented in response to "nether the plot area is sufficient, apprppriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation Page 2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review and expansion thereof', the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Statements on1 page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further suppo'r• as indicated above. With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously indicated. Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located well within the boundaries of the property, ". . . which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Page 2-10 indicates that the facility is ". . . consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Town of Southold. With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with architectural features of". . . the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood." Section C Historic and Archeolo ical Resources Archeolo ical Resources, Probable Impacts of th Proposed Pro'ect page 2-15 4 It is stated that the proposed location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P IB investigation and that no archeological sources would be impacted by the proposed project since the tower still remains within the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location ground cover and soil types. Upon inspection of the site it was observed that the proposed tower will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether this portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farming activities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find information from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage IB Archeological Assessment. It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage IB assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Page 3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Section D Visual Resources, Probable Impacts of the Proposed Proiect, pane 2-16 Visual impact i;ssessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar facilities in th context of the area and/or corridor subject to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, E ensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area, but the exact height and location of thj utility are not provided, and the zoning, surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different from a Police cell tower. Finally, the pre-existence of a Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape,particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural, A-C zoned location Ithat may be different from other more intense use areas. I The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings", does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figures 1-1, Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements at the end of the section, ". . . the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility", and "Therefore, while the pro sed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or v ew corridors would be adversely affected" are not fully supported given the information requested above. It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent or similar to a flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the tower to be of a different character and larger than that to which it is being compared. Please provide) additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind iturbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Section G Witerfront Revitalization, Town of Southold LWRP, vaee 2-20 Insufficient in rmation is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent tPolicy 3. With regard to Policy 12, please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appropriate or agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Page 4 • LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Section H Infrastructure,Existine Conditions, Sanitary Sewaee, pave 2-22 It is stated that since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However, the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a visitors center which discharges some volume of sanitary effluent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site and method of disposal. Section I Traffic, page 2-22 It is stated dial the turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that t iere would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Plea a provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. Section K Noi§e,Noise Prediction Methodology, Daee 2-27 and 2-28 The basis for he maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the so rce of this approximate sound power level, and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation. Noise monitoring station locations and receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aerial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information concerning methodology for decibel addition and support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exist, based on zoning. Additional In rmation Mitigation me ures would be appropriate to include in the EA. Mitigation to be considered wo d include the following: • Modified tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or provide more appropriate historical context. • Modified location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or, an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the facility within the parcel. Property configuration, receptors, wetlands areas and future potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Landscape screening at base of tower to "soften" mass of structure, screen fence and parially screen base of tower. • Conditi ns on balance of property within proximity to tower to maintain access control,'and improve safety within"fall zone" and immediate area. Other mitigation which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary. Page 5 • LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Miscellaneouo Comments Inspection of the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where occasional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at the winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discuss any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design or institutional controls to protect employees of and/or visitors to the winery. If the Planning Board is in agreement, we recommend that the Applicant make the necessary chai ges to the EA and submit sufficient copies of the revised EA to the planning Board office for further review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON, POPE& VOORHIS, LLC I Eric Arnesen, RPG II Pr ' c a arles J oorhis, CEP, AICP Managing Partner Page 6 i Attachments _ Page 1 of 1 -Alp/ C77M - 01/2�/p ARCHEOLOGY COMMENTS 03PROSOGS Based on reported resources, there Is an archeological site in or adjacent to your project area cheological survey is . Therefore the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) recommends that a Phase 1 ar warranted for all Portions of the project to Involve ground disturbance, unless substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented. If you consider the project area to be disturbed, documentation of the disturbance will need to be reviewed by OPRHP. Examples of disturbance include mining activities and multiple episodes of building construction and demolition. A Phase 1 survey is desl Ined to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites or other cultural resources in the project area of potential effect. The Phase 1 survey is divided Into two progressive units of study Including a Phase LA sensitivity assessment and Initial project area field Inspection, and a Phase 1B subsurface testing progr im for the project area. The OPRHP can provide standards for conducting cultural resource investigations L Pon request. Cultural resource surveys and survey reports that meet these standards will be accepted and approved by the OPRHP. Our office does not condt t cultural resources surveys. A 36 CFR 61 qualified archeologist should be retained to conduct the Phase 1 su y. Many archeological consulting firms advertise their availability in the yellow pages. The services of qualified i rcheologists can also be obtained by contacting local, regional, or statewide professional number archeoloof acres Impa to We encourage n s surveys to contact a number of consulting firms and gcompare examples ofeach firm's work to obtaIr the best product. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description of the disturbance with confirming evidence. Confirmation can Include current photographs and/or older photographs of the project area which illustrate the disturbance (approximately keyed to a project area ma disturbances, or currents it borings that verifyP), Past maps or site plans that accurately record previous to be substantial ground isturbance and man sites have pbeen Identified n prrevioutions to the land. sly cultivated ral i laty Is nd considered If you have any questions concerning archeology, please contact Michael Schifferli at 518-237-8643. ext 3281 http://sphin c R/PNMeadFonn-asp?iPrn=1&iFId=5470&sSF"ile_form4.htm 10/28/03 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP / �J 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L. MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 knnintzer@kra nedevin.coon January 27, 2004 BY FEDERAL E&RESS Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse Chair, Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road AN 2 R 2004 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Southold Town Planning Board Re: LIPA - Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with its application to the Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic (the "Project"). LIPA has also applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. LIPA is acting "lead agency"pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") to conduct the required environmental review of the Project. In connection with that SEQRA review, LIPA retained an environmental consultant, AKRF, to prepare an environmental assessment ("EA")!analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. LIPA circulated the EA to the Planning Board and the ZBA in October 2003. h7 November 2004, the Planning Board retained its own environmental consultant,Nelson Pope, to review the EA and provide a report to the Planning Board with comments on the sufficiency of the EA (at LIPA's expense). We understand that this report was issued in draft to the Planning Board on January 19, 2004, but that the full Planning Board may not be able to finally approve the report until its next meeting on February 9, 2004. As SEQRA involved agencies, neither the Planning Board nor the ZBA can make a final determination on the respective applications before them until LIPA has completed its SEQRA review of the project. The Planning Board obviously cannot take final action on the site plan application until the ZBA has granted the requested special exception and height variance. �323165401 Affiliate:Studio Santa Maria Alliance:Berwin Leighton Paisner Milan +Rome London -Brussels ' KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS BARANKEL LLP • Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse January 27, 2004 Page 2 The ZBA held a hearing on LIPA's applications on December 18, 2004. That hearing was continued until February 26, 2004 pending LIPA's completion of the SEQRA process. At this point, LIPA believes that it has fully analyzed all of the potential environmental impacts of the Project and would like to complete the SEQRA process before the next ZBA meeting. However, LIPA would like to have the opportunity to consider, and have AKRF review, Nelson Pope's comments on the EA. Accordingly, LIPA requests that the Planning Board authorize the immediate release of the Nelson Pope report in draft to LIPA, subject to further review and revision by the Planning Board, so that LIPA and its consultant may have an opportunity to consider and address the report prior to the upcoming ZBA hearing. In the alternative, LIPA requests that the Planning Board authorize Nelson Pope to speak with AKRF about the draft report and advise it as to whether Nelson Pope has identified any environmental concerns that it would like LIPA to further address. LIPA would obviously take the risk that the Planning Board might have revisions to the report or additional concerns that may be raised for the first time at the February 9, 2004 meeting. We appreciate the Planning Board's consideration of LIPA's request, which is intended to keep the ZBA review process and, consequently, the Planning Board review process, moving along as quickly as possible while still ensuring full environmental review of the Project. Very truly yours, 6aren L. Mintzer cc: Mr. Bruno Semon KU 2316540 1 01.27/2004 17:90 FU 212 715 6000 KRAMER LEVIN LLP 0 001/009 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS 8: FRANKEL LLP 919 TRIRU AVENUE NewY0RK NY 10022 (212)7159100 Fax Department: (212)715-9191 Fax Number: (212)715-9000 FROM: Karen L. intzer DATE: January 27, 2004 PHONE: (212) 715 7775 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE To: RxciraNT COMPANY FAx No. PRONENo. 1. Brano SemOn Town of Southold 631.765.3136 631,765.1938 Total number of pages cluding this page: 3 The documents &ccx=jXjrg this e transmission unfloupato.TOW is nrbdle . If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination of the commmication is AtricCfy prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify its irtaediately by telephone. Thank you. Re: UPA pCMWE JAN 2 8 200 D 4 Southold Town K ,,,,o,�, Plannin Boar( 01/27/2004 17:31 FAX 2I2 715 8000 KRAM LEVIN LLP a002/003 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3862 KAREN L.MINTZO PARS ASSOgATE 47,AVENUE HOLE 75008 M (212)715-777 m (33-1)44 09 46 00 PAX (212)715•800 FAX(33.1)44 09 46 01 kminteer®kremerlelirmm January 27,2004 BY FED"EXPRESS Ms, Jerilyn B. 'Woodhouse Chair,Town Of Southold Planning Board Southold Towm Hall 53095 Main Rc ad Southold,Now York 1 1971-09$9 Re: LIPA -Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey's minion Vineyard Prot=in Peconic Dear Ms. Woodhouse: We represent the Long Island Power Authority C LIPA'�in connection with its application to the Planning Board for site plan approval to construct a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard Property in Peconic(the`Project"). LIPA has also applied to the Zoning Board c f Appeals("ZBA") for a special exception and a height variance for the Project. LIPA is acting "lead agency"pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA'�to conduct the required environmental review of the Project, In connection with that SEQRA review, LIPA retained an environmental consultant,AIM, to prepare an environmental assessment("E ")analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. LIPA circulated the E A to the Planning Board and the ZBA in October 2003. In November 2004, the Planning Board retained its own environmental consultant,Nelson Pope,to review the EA and provide a repor to the Planting Board with comments on the sufficiency of the EA(at LIPA's expense). We t nderstand that this report was issued in draft to the Planning Board on January 19,2004,but th it the full Planning Board may not be able to finally approve the report until its next meeting or February 9,2004. As SEQ RA involved agencies,neither the Planning Board nor the ZBA can make a final determination o i the respective applications before them until LIPA has completed its SEQRA review of the pr ject. The Planning Board obviously cannot take final action on the site plan application until the ZBA has granted the requested special exception and height variance. KL31]I651J.1 A�Tllirtlk:SAdio Snera{6rtrirt A[limrce Bsrwin LeWhron Poisnnr Im9ah"Rono London"Bn jdll 01/27-'2004 17:01 FAX I212 715 6000 KRAMER LEVIN UP 11003/003 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS$ FRANKEL LLF Ms. Jerilyn B. oodhouse January 27,20 44 Page 2 The ZE A held a hearing on LIPA's applications on December 18,2004. That hearing was continued until February 26,2004 pending LIPA's completion of the SEQRA process. At this point,LIP k believes that it has fully analyzed all of the potential environmental impacts of the Project aric would like to complete the SEQRA process before the next ZBA meeting. However, LIP would like to have the opportunity to consider, and have AKRF review,Nelson Pope's co=nc nts on the EA. Accordingly,LIPA requests that the Planning Board authorize the immediate release of the Nelson Pope report in draft to LIPA, subject to further review and revision by the Planning Board, so that LIPA and its consultant may have an opportunity to consider and address the report prior to the upcoming ZBA hearing. lathe altemative,LIPA requests that d ie Planning Board authorize Nelson Pope to speak with AKRF about the draft report and adv se it as to whether Nelson Pope has identified any environmental Concerns that it would like LIF A to further address. LIPA would obviously take the risk that the Planting Board night have re isions to the report or additional concerns that may be raised for the first time at the February 9 2004 meeting. We appreciate the Planning Board's consideration of LIPA's request,which is intended to keep the ZBA review process and, consequently,the Planning Board review process,moving along as quickly as possible while still ensuring full environmental review of the Project. Very truly yours, CenL.Mintzer cc: Mr. B Ir no Semon %].kanev,u SAN-1_9-2004 _6:26I NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.01 ym, Sir NELSON POPE&VOORHIS,LLC M WMONMBNTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING M WALT wA M MAD,NBIND.U.NY 11141.1145 (671)'77-wl PAX(oO Vl1J U I ryv(l�rlgnyope.m,v FAX COVER SHEET To: Bruno Semon Fax; 765-3136 From: III' Eric Amesen Date: January 19,2004 Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project NP&V 03434 Na off ages., 9 (including Cover) Comments: Mr, Semon: Please see our enclosed comment response letter related to the above referenced project, Should you have any questions or require any additional information,please contact me at (631) 427-5665. Sincerely, Eric Arnesen p ElWEWE JAN 2 0 200 D 4 Southold Town annin Board JRN-19-2004 16:26. NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P,02 Ail NELSON pops a VOORHIS, LLC #11 ■NVIRON M ENTLL PLAN NINO 00 NOW LTINO pMRLlS J.VCORNIE,O!�AICP,AfRMJII J.KOEREER P.E'VN 7MR SERF.P.E J08WH K NIIRIIA,P.E•ROMJR 0.NELSON.JR„P.E. , MILL M.RAM P1&•THOMAS F.LEMSO.RE, January 19,2002 Town of Soi thold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road,PO Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Arm Brunc Semon Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment Review Comments NP&V#03434 Dear Mr. Semen: At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR), 6NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(2)(i). Based on oar review of the submitted EA and the SEQRA regulations we believe the document is insuffieient as a decision-making tool. This document provides a point-by- point review of the items we recommend for revision in the EA as well as additional requestedanalysis: kleures In Chapter , Section D it is stated that five(5) sites in. Suffolk County were selected for the propose d wind turbine facilities and their locations are illustrated on Figure 1-3. A review of Figure 1.3 identifies six (6) sites. Please clarify how many sites were considered for this project. It is noted that the two (2) locations in Calverton are considered ne (1) site. It appears that the Manorville site illustrated on the figure is the additional s Ae omitted from the total. Section an Zoning and Community (ides able Ininacts.. Land Us t US, Date2A41: It is stated that the proposed wind turbine would not oonflict with the character of the general area immediately adjacent to or within the general area of the project site since historically,wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment While it is ecognized that windmills have been and are still located on the eastern and of Long Island their use has been partially or directly related to the activities occurring on C90 WALT WH17MAN MCAO, MELVILLe. NY 11747 - II1E• (831;4e7-sEEe PG%te31]a37-GlEC WW W'NELSONROPE.CCM 7aN-15-2004 _0:27 NEL SON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.W • LIPA Wind a ma Deacvanon Pro)ed EnA tatAaeeaementReview each farm w 'ch with they are associated. It is apparent that the placement of a wind . turbine at th subject site will not contribute directly to any process which occurs at the Osprey Dort' ion Vineyards with the exception of an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) issued to the land owner. In addition, from an aesthetic point of vi , the wind turbine proposed will not share the same visual characteristics shared with 6vindmills historically utilized on the cast end of Long Island. Several of these strue s which still exist in 'villages and hamlets of Long Island (i.e. Sag Harbor, Shelter Islar, i, Southampton, East Hampton, etc.) consist of wood "silo type" structures which offer v much different historical context and aesthetic quality which the proposed steel lattice wer wind turbine would not offer, As a result the proposed structure may present visL al characteristics which are not consistent with the historical farming aesthetic noi naIly associated with the east end of Long Island. Please revise this and all other sectio s which state that the proposed wind turbine will have no impact due to the historical us of wind mills on farms within Long Island. P -4 th onab 2-10 Analysis of probable land use and zoning impacts is not at a sufficient level of detail to allow for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The analysis should consider the following: • The nature of a new-type of windmill structure, different in context, design, and function than historical windmills on Long Island. • The relevance of historical windmill sites to the Peconic location. • The immediately adjacent uses and zoning (the level of detail and specifics on sites proximate to the project that will be most significantly effected is not sufficient to support the conclusions), • The etback to the nearest residential use and resulting impacts due to visual character,noise, safety and aesthetics. • The setback' to the nearest residential zoning and potential for future land use conflicts. • The configuration of the tax parcel on which the wind turbine is located, and futur use of the subject parcel, The statem t on page 2-6 that the proposed wind turbine "As a historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on-site and on the farms surrounding the project site and therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned.", goes beyond a rationale conclusion based on the information presented, It is unclear how the proposal encourages the continued use of adjacent A zoned properties. The stateme t on page 2-7 referring to four(4) vehicle trips per month, conflicts with the trip generati n information on page 2-22. This information should be reconciled. With regar� to the information presented in response to "Whether the plot area is suffctent, a propriare and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation Pago 2 SAN-19-2004 16;27 NELSON,FCFE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.04 LWA Wind 1&e DemenstrMan Project Environmental Aumment Review and expansi�n thereof', the potential for future expansion should be stated, if any expansion is contemplated. Statements on page 2-8 regarding the ability of the ZBA to reach a decision require further supp<Tt as indicated above. With regard to Site Plan Regulations on page 2-9, trip generation must be reconciled as previously in dicated. Statements on page 2-9 indicate the proposed windmill will be located well within the boundaries of the property, ". . . which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties." It is unclear how this meets the requirement for adequate landscaping and screening. Similarly, the proposed wind turbine does not appear to be consistent with the historic farmland uses in terms of the wind turbines appearance and function. Page 2-10 indicate s that the facility is ", . . consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold." There does not seem to be sufficient analysis or evidence to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Town of Southold. With regard to statements on page 2-10, it is unclear how the proposed facility is consistent with architectural features of". . . the adjoining farmland and winery uses and would be in onformance with the character of the neighborhood." Section C Motoric and Arebeolovical Resources,Archlologskal ResougGen, Probable impacts he Proposed o a 4 It is stated 0 iat the proposed,location of the wind turbine tower has been moved since the completion of the shovel test pits excavated for the P iB investigation and that no archeolo'gic resources would be impacted by the proposed project since the tower still remains wit in the disturbed portion of the site and is consistent with the original site location gro md cover and soil types. Upon inspection of the site it was observed that the proposed to er will be located in a landscaped portion of the property and it is unknown whether thii portion of the site has been subject to intensive disturbance resulting from past farmin acti%pities. As a result, it is premature to conclude that based solely on the fact that the ground cover and soil types are similar to that of the test area that no impacts to archeological resources will occur. Attached please find information from the NYS Office of arks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relating to ground disturbance and how it is considered relative to the need for Stage 1B Archeological Assessment It is requested that a proper disturbance analysis or Stage IB assessment be conducted to support the authors conclusions. Page 3 SRtJ—'_9-2004 _6.28 1 NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.05 • LIPA Wind a Demonstrador Project Env td Assessment Review Sacgon D V6al Resources Probable UriDaets of the Proposed Protect,Daze 2-16 Visual impact assessment would typically consider the number of viewers, the sensitivity of viewers, and would provide additional information on the precedent of other similar facilities in the context of the area and/or corridor subject to viewing. The analysis presented is superficial, and only indicates that the view from two angles at Route 25. The nearest residences, surrounding land use and zoning, existing and future development, sensitivity of receptors and volume of traffic which may be affected by the view from Route 25 should be considered. A plan view aerial photograph or other key map would be useful to assess the location of the simulations. The analysis presented references a Police cell tower in the area, but the exact height and location of this utility are not provided, and the zoning, surrounding uses and context of the Police cell tower must be identified if a comparison is to be made. In addition, the overall mass, height, and character of the proposed wind turbine are substantially different froto a Police cell tower. Finally,the pre-existence of a.Police cell tower further demonstrates the need to conduct a thorough analysis of the introduction of a new element into the landscape, particularly since the proposed facility is in an area rural,A-C zoned location that may be different from other more intense use areas. The statement on page 2-16, "The open, latticed structure, and gray/blue colors would blend into the surroundings", does not appear to be accurate based on the information presented and particularly Figures 1-1, Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b. Furthermore, statements a the end of the section, ". . the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right an the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility", and "Therefore, while the reposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corn-idors would be adversely affected" are not fully supported given the informaion requested above. It is disingenuous to state that a wind turbine is congruent o similar to a flagpole or trees in terms of visibility, when the illustration shows the t wer to be of a different character and larger than that to which it is being compared. Please provide additional information on the methodology by which the height of the proposed wind turbine was determined for the purpose of the photo simulation. Section Waterfront Revitalization,Town of Southold LWRP.Date 2- Insufficient nformation is presented to support the statement that the proposed facility is consistent with Policy 3. With regard to Policy 12,please indicate if there are any other use restrictions that would be appwpri to for agricultural lands surrounding the tower. Page 4 ...._.__.__._. JAN—�9-2004 -6:29 NELSON,PCPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.06 LIPA Wind i DtintasuvAeA Projed Enri AtalAsa/eementReVIOW Section H 1�1 fi'astructure,Existing Conditions,Sanitary Sewage,Page 2-22 It is stated th I at since the subject property is used for agricultural purposes that it does not contribute any sewage flow. However,the site is part of a larger winery operation which maintains a Visitors center which discharges some volume of sanitary effiuent. Please amend this section to reflect the volume of sanitary effluent on-site and method of disposal, Section I Tr It is stated e.at the turbine.facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips and that there would be four (4) vehicle trips weekly or biweekly during peak hour periods. Please provide documentation or trip generation calculations to support this conclusion. ection K N ' Noise Prediction Methodolo a -27 and 2-28 The basis fo the maximum sound power level of 101 dB should be provided. Please indicate the source of this approximate sound power level, and describe the source of the noise with respect to machinery and equipment operation. Noise monitoring station locations anc receptors should be illustrated in plan view on an aerial photograph. Please provide calculations in support of the predicted noise levels at receptors. Please provide information ooncerning methodology for decibel addition and support calculations for changes in noise levels referenced on page 2-28. Information should be presented relative to the potential for residential uses to occupy locations more proximate to the wind turbine than currently exist,based on zoning. Additional 'on Mitigation measures would be appropriate to include ir. the EA. Mitigation to be considered would include the following: e Mod tied tower structure to more effectively blend with surroundings and/or prov.de more appropriate historical context. a Mod lied location within property to improve setbacks and reduce visual impacts and/or, an on-site alternative analysis to indicate the rationale for placement of the faci ty within the parcel. Property configuration, receptors, wetlands areas and futur potential for development should be considered in this analysis. • Land wape screening at base of tower to "soften' mass of structure, screen fence and artially screen base of tower. a Con itious on balance of property within proximity to tower to maintain access control,and improve safety within"fall zone' and immediate area Other mitig tion which may be appropriate can be considered by the author and included as necessary Page 5 .7RN-19-2004 16:29 NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.07 �. • LIPA WInA �e uemonetratlea}roJett 6nvl tol A"Mment Review Miscellaneo4s Comments Inspection o the subject site reveals that the wind turbine will be located in an area of the site where o casional but significant visitor activity may occur during the peak visitor period at th winery based on the presence of a gazebo and landscaped open space. Please discui s any safety measures which may be instituted either in turbine construction, design or ins itutional controls to protect employees of and/or visitors to the winery. If the P1 Board is in agreement, we recommend that the Applicant make the necessary changes to the EA and submit sufficient copies of the revised EA to the planning Bo;A office for further review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document an i please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, NELSON,POPE&Voo;tHLS,LLC Eric Annesen,RPG II'I P les I oorhis,CEP,AICP Managing Partner Page 6 JAN-'.9-2004 i6:30 NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.08 Attachments JAN-19-2004 16:.30 NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.09 ARCHEOLOGY cOMMENTS Based on reported cares, there Is en archeological aka In or adjacent to your project area, Therefore the Office of Parks, Rae tlon and Historic Praservatlon (OPRHP) recommends that a Phase 1 archeological survey b warranted for ell po no of the proJect to Involve ground disturbance, unless substantial prior ground disturbance Can ba d anted.If you consider the project airs to be disturbed,documentation of then dhnturbance will need be reviewed by OPRHP. Examples of disturbance Include mining activities and multiple episodes of building nstructlon and demolition. A Phase 1 survey Is d lined to determine the presence or absence of archeological Albin or other cultural resources In the praJe is airs OF potential affect,The Phase 1 survey Is divided Into two Progressive units of study Including a Plies 1A sensitivity asaassment and Initial Project area field Inspection, and a Phase 18 subsurface testing program for the project area.The OPFtHP an provide standards for conducting cultural rsource Invasopti upon request, Cultural resource surveys and survey reports that meet these standards will be eecapted and appre ved by the OPRHp. Our office daces not C01 duct cultural resources surveys.A 36 CFR 61 qusnMd archeologist should be retelned to conduct the Phase 1 s rvey, Many archeological consulting-fi"advertise their Availability in the yellow,pages: The services of gwha d erchaoloquts Can also be obtained by contacting local, regional, or statewide professional archeological organita no. Phase 1 surveys can be expected to vary in cost per mile of right-of-way or by the number of acres imps d. We encourage you to contact a number of consulting arms anti compare examples of each Firm's work to o In the Debt product. Documentation of grou d disturbance should Include a description of the disturbance with Confirming ovldenee, Confirmation can Inclu a current photographs and/or older photographs of the project area which Illustrate th tu e ea j�dlstumanes (approxsn ly keyed to a project arm map), Past maps or site plans that accurately record previous disturbances, or Curren call borings that verify past disruptions Po the land. Agricultural activity Is not considered to be substantial groan disturbance and many sites have been Identified In previously cultivated land. If you have any questl ns concerning archeology, plsse contact Michael Schifferii At 518-237-8643. ext 3281 hnP:%/sPbitL�li/Pl IIacodFo:m,asp?iPm=1&iFId-5470&sSFile=form4.11tm 10/28/03 TOTAL P.09 113 *01SIVO SOUTHOLD FIRE DISTRICT P.O. BOX 908. SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 December 11,12003 (631) 765-4305 FAX (631) 765-5076 Mr. Bruno Semon Senior Site Plan Reviewer Southold Town Planning Board PO Box 1179 Southold, NY h 1971 Re: SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 & 20.2; LIPA & Osprey Dominion Dear Bruno: Please be advised that the Board of Fire Commissioners has reviewed the above mentioned map and found that there is adequate fire protection for this site plan. This letter is valid for one year. Sincerely, 0�4(0pnCEECynthia Caprisle Fire District Secretary So ftW Torn Planninz BoarA PLANNING BOARD 1 MBERS p$VFf��A C BENNETT ORLOWS JR. P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGG O v, • " Telephone(631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREM RS O Fax(631) 765-3136 MART N HESID IDS R PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 9, 1003 Federick Peritore Keyspan 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,NY 11801 Re: LIPA Wi dturbine at Osprey Dominion 44075 Main Road Peconic,NY SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 &20.2 Dear Mr. Peri ore, This letter is to inform you that the above listed site plan application was reviewed at the Architect Review Committee (ARC)meeting held on December 2, 2003. Attached you will find a copy of the minutes from the meeting. Please review the minutes and inform us in writing if the conditions are acceptable. If there are an questions you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 ext. 229 between the hours of 8:00 .m. and 4:00 p.m. Respectful)y y)urs, -Brugo Se Senior Site PIE n Reviewer CC:file enc. ARC minutes Bs SOUTHOLD TOWN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE December 2, 2003 D E C E V 2 The ARC met at Town Hall at 4:30 p.m.. Members present were: U LS D Garrett A. Strang, Co-Chairman. Robert I. Brown, Co-Chairman DEC - 8 2003 Herbert Adler, Jr.,Landmarks Preservation Committee Howard einke, Cutchogue Southold Town Robert Keith, Mattituck, Secretary Plannin Boarl Also present were Bruno Semon of the Planning Board staff, Michael and Joy Domino for Gre nport Heights Development Corporation, Darin Skrezek for Natural Landscape Accents, and Thomas Wickham, Moved by Robe Brown and seconded by Garrett Strang, it was RESOLVED to APPROVE the 14INUTES of the meet'.ng of November 6, 2003, Vote of the Comi rlittee: Ayes all. h Manhasset Avenue - Greenport) Moved by Herbe t Adler and seconded by Howard Meinke, it was RESOLVED that the prior CONDITIONS were SATISFIED SAVE for the color of the roof. Vote of the Committee: Ayes All. GREENPORT HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (74365 Main Road - Greenport) The applicants described I a 2400 square foot building to be shared by restaurant and retail spaceE and faced to the west. The Committee recommended that the design professio ial suggest changes to acknowledge that the South elevation faces the street end to mitigate the appearance of the East elevation which is now designed as the ear of the structure. Moved by Garret: Strang and seconded by Robert Brown, it was RESOLVED to TABLE the appli ation awaiting design possibilities and the completed checklist pertaining to roof penetrations, exterior lighting etc. Vote of the Committee: Ayes All. NATURAL LANDSCAPE ACCENTS (North Road - Peconic) /'SYii/cC-ZEC, The applicant de cribed a 50,000 square metal, heated, storage building to include an office and toilet facilities. The Committee suggested that the roof pitch be increased to s much as 6 in 12 and that the porch roof be changed from a hip to a straight shec design. Moved by Garret Strang and seconded by Robert Brown, it was RESOLVED to TABLE the appli ation pending revised drawings and the information on the Committee's the klist. Vote of the Comrmittee: Ayes All. KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP �S 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAX (212)715-8000 FAX (33-1)44 09 46 01 kminlzer@kramerlevin.00lm December 1, 2003 D W E W l 0 BY FEDERAL ERESS DEC — 3 L:,"...- Ms. Linda Kowals 9 Southold Town Town of Southold�oning Board of Appeals I Planning Board Southold Town H411 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 1 1 97 1-0959 Re: LIP - Proposed Wind Turbine on Osprey Dominion VVi Yard Property Dear Ms. Kowalski: We are in receipt of the Zoning Board of Appeals November 17, 2003 memorandum to the Planning Board, on which we were copied,requesting the submission of any updated plans for the proposed wind turbine. We have no updated plans and our proposed site plan has already been submitted to the Planning Board. We though it might be helpful at this time, however, to provide you with a copy of detailed drawings for the LIPA wind turbine facility that is currently operating in Riverhead,New York, for illustrative and informational purposes. Please do r of hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosure cc: Mr. Bruno�Semon (w/enclosure) Mr. Frederick Peritore(w/o enclosure) IW,2305755.I AflioW 0,01 es Alliance Offices Milan"Rohe London`Brussels I KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP �S 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAx (212)715-8000 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintrer@kramerlevi n.cojn November 26, 2003 BY HAND D E C E Mr. Bruno Semon D Planning Board of the Town of Southold DEC — 2 Town Hall 53095 State Road 15 Southold Town Southold, New Yo¢k 11971-0959 wannin Boats Re: LIP�K eyspan - Environmental Consultant Fee Dear Bruno: Enclosed isl a check for $2,000 for the cost of the Planning Board's retention of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, L�C ("Nelson Pope") in connection with LIPA's applications to construct a wind turbine on th Osprey Dominion Vineyards property in Peconic. We understand that Nelson Pope will u4idertake the "enviromnental/planning review"work described in its November 11, 200 letter. As you kno I w, LIPA's application for a height variance and special exception use permit are to be discussedlat the Zoning Board of Appeals December 18, 2003 meeting. To enable full discussion of all is ues regarding the proposed project at the December 18, 2003 meeting,Nelson Pope should perfo its work and provide LIPA and its consultant, AKRF, with any substantive Comments on the ctober 2003 environmental assessment and EAT in advance of the meeting. Very truly yours, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosure cc: Mr. Frederick Peritore KU 2305518.1 Affiliate Offices Alliance Offices Milan -Rome London *Brussels Pr&%NNIN, BOARD 0 g�FFOC,� BENNETT ORLOW9 'TER - P.O. Boa 1179 Chairman Town Hall,53095 State Route 26 Southold,New York 11971-0959 W LLI�J CRRE E O 0 Telephone(631) 786-1938 KENNETH L.EDWAI LDS Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN H.SIDO PLANNING BOARD OFFICE , p TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 19,2003 Federick Peritore Keyspan 175 East Old Country I toad Hicksville,NY 11801 Re: MLIPA Windturb ne at Osprey Dominion . 44075 Main Road Peconic,NY SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 &20.2 Dear Mr.Peritore, We received an estimate on the environmental planning review from our consultant. Attached is a copy of the estimated fee fo the environmental planning review. The Planning Board .B)held a work session on November 17,.2003 and reviewed the estimate. The P.B. agreed to accept t 3is planning review and requires this to rocess the proposed application. Please review the estimate an submit payment in the amount of 2,000.00 endorsed to the own of Southold./ The P.B. requires the ayment to be submitted before approving the consultant to perform the review. If there are any questions you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 x229 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Y B Seraon l Senior Site Plan Reviewer ./ CAS i c CC:file � Go .� attachment ptoled P�P �v�3F KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 Fax (212)715-8000 FAx (33-1)44 09 46 01 kmintzer@kmmerlevin.com November 20, 2003 BY FEDERAL E$FRESS D E C 7Town Mr. Bruno Semon Town of Southold frown HallNOV 53095 State Road$5 Southold, New Yo�k 11971-0959 SoutPlann Re: LIPA -Proposed Wind Turbine Dear Bruno: Per your request,we enclose an extra copy of the proposed site plan and environmental assessment for the 4bove-referenced project. Please let me know if you require any further assistance. Sincerely, Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL3.23038271 Affiliate QJfikes Alliance Offices Milan *Ronde London *Brussels C / I • • f I PLANNING BOARD hI MBERS gUFF01/r ////��-� BENNETT ORLOWS`•','_ JR. �� C P.O. Box 1179 Chairman i o Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 goSouthold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGG O v, Telephone(631) 765-1938 ENNEWILLI M J.CREME RS O DS Fax (631) 765-3136 MARTIN H. SIDO yi�t� �aQ`' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 19, 2003 Suffolk County Planning Commission 220 Rabro Drive P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Attention: Andrew Freleng, Principal Planner Subdivision Review Division Gentlemen Pursuant to Section A14-24, Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Southold Town. Planning Board hereby refers the following proposed subdivision to the Suffolk County Planning C mmission: Map of: LIF A Windturbine at Osprey Dominion Hamlet/Locality: Peconic S.C.D.P.W Topo No.: Zoning: AC S.C. Tax M p No.: 1000—75.-1-20.1 & 20.2 Major Sub. Minor Sub. Site Plan_X_Cluster Lot Line Change MATERIAL SUBMITTED: Preliminary Plat (3 copies) Road Profiles (1) Drainage Plans (1) Topographi I Map (1) Site Plan (1)_X_ Grading Plan (1) Other mate ials (specify and give number of copies) —EIS Waiver of Subdivision Requirements - See attached sheet Page 2 Southold Town Planning Board Referral Referral Criteria: Please review this amended site plan is for a New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parce in the A-C Zone located at 1,506'east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road know as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. SEORA STATUS: LIPA is assuming Lead Agency and we have not received a negative declaration to date. 1. The pr(ject is an ( ) Unlisted Action ( ) Type I Action ( ) Type II Action 2. A ( ) Negative Declaration ( ) Positive Declaration ( ) Determination of Non-significance has been adopted by the Planning Board. 3. E.I.S. s atement enclosed. ( x ) Yes O No 4. The proposed division has received approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health. ( )Yes (X )No Comments: Pending approvals are Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board and Building Department We request acknowledgement of receipt of this referral (X ) Yes ( ) No Referral re ived 2001 by the Suffolk County Planning Commissio and assigned File No. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman i PLANNING BOARD i MBERS �OFFOLIr BENNETT ORLOWS P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO y, • Telephone(631) 765-1938 KENNETH L.WILLIAM J.CREM RS O Fax(631) 1) -3136 765-1 MARTIN HESID DS y�01 * �� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 19, 2003 Federick Perit re Keyspan 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,NY 11801 Re: LIPA Wi dturbine at Osprey Dominion 44075 Main Road Peconic,NY SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 &20.2 Dear Mr. Peritore, In reviewing the site plan application materials submitted to the office, the Planning Board(PB) found the following elements would be required. The site plan application will need to include the following to be processed: The proposed ended site plan will need require relief granted from the Southold Town ZBA before w can process this any further or issue final approval. If there are any questions you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 .m. l Res (ctf ly urs, Bruno§emo for Se Site PI Reviewer CC:file PLANNING BOARD i MBERS �gUFF01jr BENNETT ORLOWS JR. � P.O. Box 1179 Chairman I Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 yp Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CACG O • Telephone(631) 765-1938 KENNETH M L. ED ERS DS O Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN HESID R 'f.�Ol p! PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORA DUM Date: November 19, 2003 To: Ms. Oliva, Chairwoman of Zoning Board of Ap als From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Revieww Re: ZBA Appeal No. 5450&5432 comments for the LIPA Wind Turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zor ed AC Status: Activ Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in your Depa Iment for review. In reference o the memo request for information dated November 17, 2003. The Plannin Board (PB) held a work session to discuss this application on November 17, 2003; the P. . would like to offer the following comments and concerns. The P.B. reviewed this amended site plan for the New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the -C Zone located at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. The P.B. reserves comments on the above until we receive the environmental planning review from NP & V the consultant. Thank you in advance. Cc: file& PLANNING BOARD MBE S �gOFFO(,�c • BENNETT ORLOWSI I,JR. �� P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 RICHARD CAGG O Southold, New York 11971-0959 %v Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J. CREM RS O KENNETH L.EDW DS 'j' • 0Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN H. SIDO �0.( `VX PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 19, 2003 Federick Peritore Keyspan 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,NY 1180 Re: MLIPA Windturt ine at Osprey Dominion 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM 1000-75.4-20.1 & 20.2 Dear Mr. Peritore, We received an estim to on the environmental planning review from our consultant. Attached is a copy of the estimated fee fo the environmental.planning review. The Planning Board .13) held a work session on November 17, 2003 and reviewed the estimate. The P.B. agreed to accept I his planning review and requires this to process the proposed application. Please review the estimate and submit payment in the amount of$2,000.00 endorsed to the Town of Southold. The P.B. requires the oayment to be submitted before approving the consultant to perform the review. If there are any questions you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 x229 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Resp o J r B Semon Senior Site Plan Revi er CC:file attachment • . Page 1 of 1 Semon, Bruno From: Kowalski, Linda Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:03 AM To: Semon, Brun Subject: LIPA Osprey Dominion PB Memo Hi Bruno, Happy Friday to you. Just wanted to let you know that the ZBA at the Special Meeting last night reviewed the PB memo with attachments. After discussion about the site elements, code procedures and time frames, the Board consensus was that no additional information would be added at this time, and therefore no written reply is available. Thank you, Linda 11/7/2003 I APPEALS BOARD M�MBERS Southold Town Hall� 53095 Main Road Ruth D.Oliva,Chairwoman P.O.Box 1179 Gerard P.Goehrin er Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lydia A.Tortom Telephone(631)765-1809 George Horning ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN MEMO TO: Pla ning Board FROM: Ruth Oliva, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairwoman DATE: November 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Osprey Dominion, LIPA, Keyspan — 75-1-20.1 & 20.2 This memo is sent as a request for comments regarding the above reviews pending with Town Departments. Presently, The Board of Appeals is reviewing an Appeal of the Building Department's August 26, 2003 Notice of Disapproval for height variance relief, as well as a ZBA special exception f r a wind turbine (copies attached). A ZBA public hearing is advertised for December 18, 200 . The plans submitted for review by the ZBA are dated 10-10-03, prepared by T.J. Filazzola, E gineer, and 6-28-02, by Gregory, S. Gallas, Surveyor. The Planning Boa d may be involved regarding a pre-submission review under the site plan regulations of the Zoning Code. Your comments regarding this pending application are requested. By way of a co this letter, the applicant's attorney is re guested to submit the same plans to the Building De pa ment for a review of any amendments dated after the Building Department's review of the 6-28 2 and 10-10-03plans), and current site plan data to your Department, if it hasn't already bee i submitted in a re-submission review. Additional information may reviewed under ZBA Files # 450 & 5432. Thank you. Enclosures cc: Fredrick Pe-itore, Keyspan, fax 516 545-5248 Richard Lel nd, Esq. / Karen Minter, LIPA, fax 212 715 0291 ZBA staff tEI zoo3IE 1 7 D Southold Town Plannin Board 1 PLANNING BOARD BENNETT ORLOWSI MBE �gpffU(,YcG • P.O. Box 1179 I,JR. Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGG O Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREM RSKENNETH L. O Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN HESID RDS y��l `1a�� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 17, 2 03 Cynthia Caprise Secretary Southold Fire Di trict P.O. Box 908 Southold, New ork 11971 Dear Ms. Capris : Enclosed please find a site plan/survey dated October 10, 2003 for Long Island Power Authority, Osprey Dominion Vineyard(Main Road, Peconic. SCTM#1000-75. 1-20.1 & 20.2 O The enclosed site plan is being referred to you for fire access review arid for your recommendations as to whether any fare- wells are needed. Please specify whether firewells are shallow or electri . O The enclosed subdivision is being referred to you for your recommendation at to whether any firewells are needed. Please specify whether firewells are shallow or electric. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly`yours, Bruno Semon Senior Site Plan Reviewer enc. I�`` • F • Sv�3Y Albert J. Krupski, Presient - D�OSUF OC�C� Town Hall James King,Vice-Presi ent tiZ' 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster P.O.Box 1179 y Z Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ken Poliwoda G Peggy A. Dickerson 1 .!• �� Telephone(631) 765-1592 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Brui o, Senior Site Plan Reviewer �p FROM: Board of Trustees D E C E ' c DATE: November 13, 2003 D NOV 1 4 2003 RE: Turbine as Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Rd., Southold Southold 7owo SC M#75-1-20.1&20.2 %81111h1 Boats The Southold Town Board of Trustees has reviewed the site plan prepared by Bohler Engineering, P.C. dated October 10, 2003 and determined the proposed turbine to be out the Wetland jurisdictio under Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code and Chapter 37 of the Town Code. NOV—!2-2003 :.8:18 NELSON,POPE,LLP 516 425 1257 P.01 �• �,fix, ��., ' �i/L/✓� NELSON, POPP6 VOORHIS, LLC �'.. • LNVIACNVEWAL • rL4NNM • CONMUL71NG _TM Wa dr JA#TmAN FCAD.MaLVLLG,W 11747 ,W40 t631) 4 -!Sqw FAX W31) 4274MM npva:moba pepw.rAm FAX COVER SHEET To: Bruno Semon CC., Phone: Far: (631) 76&3136 From: Kathy Eiseman D E C E E Dote. November 12, 2003 D NOV 1 2 2003 Re: Proposal Southold Town i♦0. Of e9: 2 Planning Board (Including Cover) Comments: H!Bran, Ached is the propoml you requested for review services in connection with the LIPA wind turbine proposal. Please&J ve me a call if you bave say questions. Also,please let me]mow if the Planning Board approves our propc al so we may begin review of the materials. Tllanlrs, Kathy -_ I NOV-12-2003 16:1-2 NELSON,POPF,LLP 516 4225 1257 P.e2 i NfiLSON. POPLa A VOOR1418A LLC I� aNVMONMC NTGL f".4NNIN• CO NSULTN� c,Af .as J.VcoRMIB OEP AM'•ARTHUR J.KMRSM PE.,VC TOM BERT R.E. JOSEPH R.EPIMM A.Of ReaERT 6.RELBOI'1 JR..P.E. PAUL M-RACZ,P.A•TNOMM F LEMDO,P.E. November 11,2003 Mr. Bruno Semon 'Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road,PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Ike: Town of Southold,puviroummW Review L1PA Wind F,aergy Proposal SCTM#1000-75-1-20,t&20.2 Dear Mr.Strom Thank you for wi tactins NP&V for services in connection with review of the proposed wind turbine at the Osprey Doraiii0a property in Peconia We have conducted a cursory review of the materials submitted by the applicant and feel that the followuig tasks are necessary to effectively evaluate the proposal and provi de our recommendations to the Plarming Boardr 1. Environments Flaming Review • Inspect pr 3perty and area to determine environmental resources and characteristics. • Inspect an existing wind turbine for visual comparison. • Review Part I Environmental Assessment Form for informational purposes. • Review supporting documentation submitted by the applicant and evaluate accuracy of analysis contained in the repots. • Provide recommendations to the Board. Fee: $2,000.00 It. Follow-up an project meetings • Review siMplemental materials or tnsubmission prepared by the applicant (if requested by the Board). • Attend Planning Board meeting to advise Board of our findings(if requested). Fee: Time Rates Thank you for opportunity to assist on this project. Please feel free to call should you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, N N,Porn ooRffiS L/Y/LC� Ies J oorhis,CEP,fide 692 I MTM ROAD, McL . N 11947- 15108 (631i 4m-M6Q6 MAX CO21 )427-0GG UW1V.vEL3ONPCP[,COM I! TOTRL P.02 PLANNING BOARD h]EM 3ERS BENNETT ORLOWS JR. �0� ��j' P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 H : Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGG O • Telephone(631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREM MS O Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L. DS MARTIN H.SIDC R PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 5, 2003 Nelson, Pope & Voor iis, LLC. 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747 2188 Re: Proposed Site Pla ri for LIPA Wind turbine at the Osprey Dominion property 44075 Main Road, Peconic SCTM# 1000-75 1-20.1 &20.2 Dear Gentleman, We are in receipt of a new project as described above. Attached is a site plan copy dated October 10, 2003 prepared by Bohler Engineering, PC. Included is a copy of the Environmental Assessment booklet s bmitted with the application. The Planning Board ( B)held a review work session on November 3, 2003 and requested this be sent to you. Please review the site plan and booklet attached,provide the Town of Southold PB with an estimate of E vironmental services. For your information he site plan application is complete and in the Town ZBA Department for approval. It will require various approvals before the PB can set the final hearing. If there are any questi ns you can contact us at(631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Res tIllys, B S Senior Site Plan Reviower CC:file,vs,PB Enc.: site plan and b4klet PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �OgUFFO(�c/�" BENNETT ORLOW KI,JR. �� yi P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 RICHARD CAGGIANO y Z Southold, New York 11971-0959 WILLIW • M J.CRE ERS Telephone (631) 765-1938 ENNE G Fax(631) 765-3136 MARTIN HEDS SI OR �J�Ol �! PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: No ember 5, 2003 To: Ms. Oliva, Chairwoman of Zoning Board of Appeals From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Amended Site Plan Approval and comments for the LIPA Wind Tuibine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SC M#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zoned AC Status: Acti e Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in your Department for review. Required R turn Date: ASAP This amended site plan is for New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the A- C Zone loca ed at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 4 075 Main Road in Peconic. In reference to the above, attached you will find a site plan. The Site Plan reflects the current proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments or concerns. The Planning Board will not be lead agency on the SEQRA review and request omments or concerns at this time. Please compare the enclosed with your De artments records verify any inconsistencies or changes from your file. Site Plan En losed and booklet is for your records and does not need to be returned to t e Planning Board. Thank you inl advance. Cc: file Enc.: 1 Site Ian prepared by Bohler Engineering, PC, dated 10/10/03 and the EIS Booklet. PLANNING BOARD I VIEMBERS $UffU(A /�" BENNETT ORLOW KI,JR. �� Cyr P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 RICHARD CAGGIkNo CA : Southold, New York 11971-0959 • M J.CRE ER5 G if I Telephone (631) 765-1938 ENNE Fax (631) 765-3136 MARTIN HE DS SID R y�41 * �a�� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: November 5, 2003 To: Al rupski, President of Town Trustee's From: BrL no Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Am anded Site Plan Approval and comments for the LIPA Wind Turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SC M#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zoned AC Status: Active Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in the Town ZBA Department for review. Required R turn Date: ASAP This amended site plan is for New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the A- C Zone located at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. In reference to the above, attached you will find a site plan. The Site Plan reflects the current proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments or concerns with the Trustee's. The Planning Board will not be lead agency on the SEQRA review and request comments or concerns at this time. Please compare the enclosed with records in your Department and verify any inconsistencies or changes from your file. Site Plan Enclosed is for your records and does not need to be returned to the Planning Bo rd. Thank you in advance. Cc: file Enc.: 1 Site pan prepared by Bohler Engineering, PC, dated 10/10/03. I 1 PLANNING BOARD MBERS BENNETT ORLOWS ,JR. �� CA P.O. Box 1179 Cha rman o Y�J� Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 y : Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGG O v, Ay Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J. CRE ERS O Fax (631) 765-3136 MARTIN H.SID) R 'y�� a�� PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: November 5, 2003 To: James A. Richter, R.A., Engineer From: Brujno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewey-; Re: Amended Site Plan Approval and comments for the LIPA Wind Turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SC M#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zon d AC Status: Activ Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in the ZBA D::partment for review. Required Reiurn Date: ASAP This amended site plan is for New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the A- C Zone located at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 44075 Main Road in Peconic. In reference o the above, attached you will find a site plan. The Site Plan reflects the c rrent proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments, concerns and certification. The Planning Board will not be lead agency on the SEQRA reviE w and request comments or concerns at this time. Site Plan Enclosed and booklet is for your records and does not need to be returned tote Planning Board. Thank you in advance. Cc: file Enc.: 1 Site plan prepared by Bohler Engineering, PC, dated 10/10/03 and the EIS Booklet. PLANNING BENNT OBOARD MB• �O�$VFFOICO • P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGG O � ✓ • Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CRE ERS Fax (631) 765-3136 MART N HESI�DS 'y�ol p! PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORgINDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: November 5, 2003 To: Michael Verity, Principal Building Inspector From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Re: Amended Site Plan Certification and comments for the LIPA wind turbine at Osprey Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SC M#(s) 1000-75-1-20.1, 1000-75-1-20.2 Zoned AC Status: Acti a Site Plan received 10/21/03 and in process as of 11/05/03 which is in the ZBA epartment for review. Required Return Date: ASAP This amend d site plan is for New Wind Turbine on a 4.46 acres parcel in the A- C Zone located at 1,506' east of Peconic Lane on the north side of Main Road known as 4 075 Main Road in Peconic. In reference to the above, attached you will find a site plan. The Site Plan reflects the c urrent proposed build out of this site. Please review for comments, concerns and certification. The Planning Board will not be lead agency on the SEQRA review and request comments or concerns at this time. Please compare the enclosed with your Departments records. Verify any inconsistencies or changes from the disapproval dated August 26, 2003 and amended September 16, 2003. Site Plan Enclosed and booklet is for your records and does not need to be returned to the Planning Board. Thank you in,advance. Cc: file Enc.: 1 Site flan prepared by Bohler Engineering, PC, dated 10/10/03 and the EIS Booklet. 64 aK� Py'),11� .<;.'�s�rh ,Cocuca' �riWc�c ENsi�u�Ki � l/14A i • Submission Without a Cover Letter Sen.der�, Subjec4: Lu,-, SCTM*: 1000- Date: Comme#ts: ,-7 L� �J 1OrOj -ck 6, f"7 , S S, /jc o � p NOV - 5 Souftm Tan Pin Boats MEMORANDUM Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk Index No. 7359-2002 In the Matter of the Petition of the INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF POQUOTT, JANET KAGEL, STEPHEN MATTHEWS and THE BRENTWOO BAY SHORE BREAST CANCER COALITION, Petitioners, By: Hon. Robert A. Lifson For a Review of a 134termination of the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, The Long Island Power authority, and the Other Respondent- Respondents, and foDeclaratory Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and section3001 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules, -against- Dated: October 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER J HN CAHILL,AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, CHAIRMAN MA EN HELMER,AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND ENVIRONMENT, THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, KEY PAN ENERGY,THE KEYSPAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND MARKETSPAN, AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents. JOSEPH PROKOP, SQ. ARNOLD PORTER,ESQ. Prokop &Prokop 399 Park Avenue 175 Route 25 New York,New York 10022 Setauket,New York 111733 STEPHEN L. KASS,ESQ. RICHARD G.LELAND, ESQ. Carter Ledyard &Milbum Katten Muchin Zavis Roseman 2 Wall Street 575 Madison Avenue New York,New York 10005 New York,New York 10022 Village of Poquott v, Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 2 CARLE F. PATKA,IESQ. LISA FEINER, ESQ. New York State DPS Assistant Attorney General State Plaza, 3 Gupri � 18`h Floor State of New York Albany,New York 1?223 Office of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271-0332 The Initial Petition In a special proceeding brought ostensibly pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, the ners petitio , an incorporated Village, several local residents and a health advocacy association,seek to invalidate the actin s taken by the named respondents. The petitioners also seek declaratory relief pursuant to CPLR § 001. Specifically, the original petition sought a judgment: 1) declaring the actions of the respo dents in advancing their plans to construct a certain power facility without providing sufficient notice to the petitioner Village or the Suffolk County Planning Commission to be void;' 2) declaring void and setting aside a certain "negative declaration" issued on November 13, 2001, and directi rig that a complete environmental review be done examining the cumulative effect of the constru tion of a certain power generating facility adjacent to an existing power generating facility; 3 adjudging void the determination of the respondent NYS Public Service Commission dated D cember 10,2001,declaring the subject project exempt from Article 10 of the Public Service Law; 4) adjudging void the determination of the respondent Department of Environmental Conservation on January 11, 2001, granting an Air State Facility permit for the subjectproject;5)adjudgingvoid the determination of the respondent Department of Environmental Control granting an acid rain permit for the subject project; 6) adjudging void the granting and modification thereaft r of an Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permit by the Department of Environmental Conservation; 7) enjoining the continued construction on the site without submission o a full Environmental Impact Statement as well as review by the State Board of Generation Siting. The proceeding was strenuously opposed by the respondents. Procedural History The proceedin g was initiated by ex parte application to the court via petition and proposed order to show cause w "ch alleged emergency circumstances. On March 12,2002,the court(Oliver, J.) issued the order to show cause and temporarily restrained the continued construction of the project. Prior to the scheduled return date of March 19,2002,Justice Oliver vacated his temporary restraining order. Peti qoners'application to the Appellate Division to reinstate the restraining order was denied. The matt appeared on the motion calendar of the undersigned on March 21,2002,at This branch as drawn asserts deficiencies in notice,but the amended petition addresses the failure to comply with local zoning i'pws. Insofar as any improper notice is alleged, there is no credible evidence in the petition to sustain such allogation. a + Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 3 which time the appearing parties availed themselves of extensive oral argument. The petitioners sought to reinstate t e restraining order, again alleging emergency circumstances threatening the public health and safety. The court denied such requests and directed the parties to agree upon a submission schedule. Thereafter,via an extensive telephone conference the court was advised that amendment of the initial petition would be sought and a further application for extraordinary temporary relief would be made via yet another proposed order to show cause containing an amended verified petition due to the urgent emergency circumstances alleged to be present. In accordancO with the determination derived from the telephone conference,the court signed the proposed ordertq show cause dated April 19,2002,but severed any claims against State agencies that had to be venue by statute in Albany County and denied once again all requests for temporary restraining orders preventing the continued construction of the proposed generators. The underlying application for a preliminary injunction and relief pursuant to Article 78 came on before the undersigned on April 25, 2002. At that time, the court once more entertained extensive oral argument rehashing the arguments previously entertained. Again all requests for a restraining order were denied and the parties were directed to agree upon a further submission schedule on a somewhat expedited(basis due to the fact that the plant was scheduled to be operational on or about July 4, 2002 and that a judicial determination on the pending application was desired before such date. Despite the alleged urgent nature of the application, the final submission date for legal memoranda was exteded by agreement of the parties to September 5,2002,notwithstanding the fact that in the interim tho plant had become operational. Notwithstanding the extension of the agreed upon submission sch�dule set by the court during telephone conference with respective counsel and the court, the petiti ner Village submitted not only its reply legal memoranda, but submitted supplemental affidavits buttressing the prior contentions of that party. The court received a letter dated September 18, 002, from respondents' attorneys in which they objected to petitioners'reply submission as going beyond that which was agreed to in a conference call with the court had herein on August 15,2002-(specifically,respondents object to petitioners' submission of additional proof as part of the September 5, 2 002, s ubmissions which was to have consisted solely of a reply memoranda of law. espondents are correct in their recollection of what was agreed to in said conference call. The court rendered a decision on September 30, 2002, wherein the supplemental proof was considered}but extended the respondents' time to submit sur-reply affidavits to October 10,2002. That decision stated that no additional papers would be considered.Notwithstanding this court's explicit direction that no further proof would be entertained, the petitioner Village again attempted to submits, via facsimile additional proof. Even after its `reply" affidavits were immediately rejected{by the court in accordance with its decision of September 30, 2002 and returned via facsimiled the petitioner Village still mailed the submission to the court ostensibly to be considered as part of the record_ Because the parties submitted legal affidavits and memoranda of law nearly six months after the initial order to show cause was brought and after the completion of the plants,the factual context in which the application was brought has changed,the most stark change being that the peak energy n Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 4 demands ofthe summer have passed and there now appears to be more generating capacity available. The Amended Petition The amended petition sought the identical relief which was sought in the initial proceeding as set forth above in items designated 1 through 6. The seventh request for relief in the amended petition seeks to anni il the determination of the respondent Public Service Commission in granting a Certificate of Publ c Convenience and Necessity for the subject project. The eighth request for relief seeks to nulli the underlying condemnation of the selected site. The ninth request for relief again seeks to prelfir.inarily enjoin the continued construction of the project. The tenth request for relief seeks a permanent injunction against the construction of the project pending receipt of complete, full and prpper Environmental Impact Statement and environmental review by the State Board of Generation,Siting and Environment. The amended petition alleges,in pertinent part,that a certain parcel of land located adjacent to Port Jefferson hart or was improved by an electrical generating facility previously owned by the Long Island Lighting Company (now LIPA). The area immediately surrounding the plant is predominately resi ntial in nature and is in an area that has subsequently been treated as an environmentally sen 'tive habitat by the various local governments exercising land use control. The amended petition as erts that the existing electrical generating facility "is one of the oldest and dirtiest power plants n Long Island and in the United States and upon information and belief is the second largest source IIofpollution in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties."(amended petition,pp.6-7, paragraph 25). In 1998,the respondent Keyspan and its subsidiary,Marketspan,took title to the site. In 2001,the respondent Long Island Power Authority and Keyspan put forth a proposal to build two new GE 6000 comb stion turbines each designed to generate a maximum of 49 megawatts of electricity adjacent to the existing generators which produce 385 megawatts of electricity. Pursuant to the plan,LIPA was to acquire a portion of the site in question(a portion of which is alleged to lie within the political boundaries of the Village of Poquott). Keyspan would then operate the plants and generate the elect 'city which would be resold to LIPA for distribution to LIPA customers. The amended petition alleges that the respondents failed to make application for the necessary municipal approvals from the V Ilage of Poquott. The amended etition alleges that the existing plant has had a substantial negative impact upon the environmen in the area immediately adjacent to the plant. Notwithstanding that alleged fact and the possible'negative cumulative impacts of placing two additional plants in the same general facility,LIPA acting as lead agency, issued a negative declaration on November 13,2001, thus obviating the necessity of a more formalized and more detailed Environmental Impact Statement. Thereafte#,Keyspan applied to the Public Service Commission for an exemption from site review,represenri g that no-more than 79.9 megawatts of electricity would be used from the two new generators. That bequest was granted on December 10,2001. In short order,Air State Facility, Acid Rain and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits were obtained from the Village of Poquott v, Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 5 Department of Environmental Conservation. The amended petition asserts that the owner ofrecord ofthe real property is Marketspan,Inc., a private corporation an entity subject to the local land use scheme. The amended petition claims that,despite a representation by the applicants that compliance with local land use regulations would be had, no effort to Dbtain the necessary approvals was even initiated. More significantly, the amended petition allt ges that,had compliance with the local land use plan been attempted,the lead agency forpreparatio i of the environmental assessment would have been the petitioner Village and, therefore, the designation of LIPA as the lead agency for environmental assessment purposes was erroneous,thereby invalidating the negative declaration LIPA issued. The petition,amended petition and the September �, 2002, submissions of the petitioners all maintain that the facility under construction is locate¢1 in the Village ofPoquott,a circumstance that the petitioners believe is critical to both the land use and lead agency issues. The September 5, 2002, submission contains an unswom statement ofthe Village engineers Nelson and Pope submitted without any corroborative support. As a further b isis for impairing the validity of the permit obtained from the Public Service Commission, the am nded petition sets forth that the application was made by and granted to Keyspan. Thereafter, LIPA became the primary beneficiary of the permits that were then granted and assumed'the obl gations that were to be undertaken by Keyspan. Moreover, the amended petition alleges that it.a decision of the PSC failed to consider the cumulative effect of the existing generators in combination with the construction and operation of the proposed generators. Contrary to the determination of the PSC, the amended petition contends that the combined generators constitute a major generating facility which is subject to more stringent scrutiny by the PSC,thereby negating the permission initially granted. The amended petition claims that,with respect to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), ina 1equate provision was made for the public hearing since it was scheduled during a weekday in i he middle of the afternoon at the same time a hearing was being held for another nearby plant. It is fiuther alleged that the approval of this permit failed to take into account the opposition of the petitioner Village,particularly those aspects dealing with the cumulative effect of the present and pror osed generators at the site in question. The same deficiencies are urged with respect to the granting)of the Acid Rain Permit. Finally, the amended petition requests that the court issue a preliminary injunction staying construction ofthe site�PPending the final determination of these environmental issues. In this regard, it is alleged that the construction itself posed an immediate risk to the health and well being of the residents of the Village. As to potential adverse health conditions occasioned byparticulants released by the operation of the various plants,the amended petition includes the affidavit of Janet Kagel who states that she Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 6 has resided in the Village of Poquott for the last twenty five years and that eight years ago she became ill and was diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. She states that her health problem is attributable to the existing pollutants stemming from the operation of the exiting generators. She asserts that the exposure to additional material derived from the proposed ,dditional generators will exacerbate her condition. Moreover, she refers to certain studies that ir dicate that there is no safe level of particulate emissions to breathe. She claims that other members c f her family also suffer from maladies that they attribute to the operation of the existing facility. She catalogues the noise,vibrations and dust that she states come from the plant which allegedly adversely affect her health. Ms. Kagel participated in the public hearings which were held and voiced her opposition on the record. The petitioners'September 5,2002,submission contains an"Expert Witness Report"of Dr. Sara L. Mendelsohn; Dr. Mendelsohn asserts that, based on data derived from a 1999 survey (a survey in which data was collected by Mrs. Kagel's daughter as a school project), there is a 12.6% increase in chest tigh ness among women residing in Poquott which is five times the expected risk. Dr. Mendelson concl ades that said risk is associated with the particulants derived from the plant. The September 5,2002,submission also contains the analysis of Environmental Survey Data by Dr. Roger C. Grimson, 3h.D. Dr. Grimson asserts that the death rate due to cardiovascular and respiratory causes would increase due to the presence of PM10, PM2.5, S02, NO2 and CO discharges. He conk tunes that deaths due to the additional discharges of the plant would increase by 5%. He conclud-s that the health of the residents of Poquott is adversely affected by the expansion of the plant. Neither report is issued under oath or is supported by corroborative data. The petition is further supported by the affidavit ofRichard Parrish,a resident of the Village who states that he is an environmental scientist and the president of Impact Environmental Consulting, an environmental and engineering consulting firm which does substantial business in the area of environmental impacts. Mr.Parrish asserts that the environmental analysis undertaken by LIPA was flawed., If the court correctly understands Mr. Parrish, he claims that the existing generators emit 400,* pounds of particulate matter, 14,600,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 3,600,000 pounds of oxides of nitrogen and 3,700,000 pounds of carbon monoxide. Mr. Parrish claims that if allowed to operate,the two new generators will emit an additional 40,000 pounds of particulate matter, 27 pounds of oxides of nitrogen and an additional 180,000 tons of carbon dioxide, all of which ill increase the health hazards to the surrounding community. Elsewhere in l is affidavit,Mr. Parrish sets forth what he claims to be certain errors in the application with respect to siting of the project and the identity of the various corporate owners and operators of the facilit . More significantly,Mr.Parrish indicates that the applicants failed to take a genuine "hard loo " at environmental impacts the proposal would have on the surrounding environs. Among some of the deficiencies or inconsistencies noted by Mr. Parrish are as follows: 1)the proposed plant is located over a major water aquifer;2)the contours ofthe site create aesthetic and drainage concerns; 3) air pollutants will increase; 4)the EIF states that there will be no affect Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 7 on a critical environmental area despite the fact that the area in question was previously so designated; 5)the applicants failed to specify the noise and odor consequences of the proposal; 6) the submission falsely states that the project is compatible with the surrounding land use scheme; 7) the submission indicates that it will have no impact on water quality despite the location of the project in a tidal wet�and; 8)the submission indicates that there will be no traffic impact despite the acknowledgment th4t 600 people will be part of the construction team and 20 additional employees will have to be loc ted at the site when the plants become operational; 9) not only does the submission not consider the cumulative impact of the project on the Port Jefferson area,but it fails to consider the cuulative effect of the comprehensive project of building ten new generators throughout Long Island together with all the existing LIPA facilities on Long Island; 10) the submission fails to consider fugitive dust generated from the construction. Mr. Parrish alleges that the Air State Facilities Permit was improperly granted. The same type of defects in tpat permitting process is also decried. Again the failure to consider the application in question in the context of its cumulative impact (as opposed to a single addition) is attacked. In essence, Mr. Parrish indicates that the failure to characterize the project as a Major Facility as defined b applicable NYS regulations was improper and that applicants impermissibly "segmented" the prc'ect to avoid the more stringent standards imposed on Major Facilities. The amended petition fit ther alleges that the permitting process failed to consider fugitive particulate emissions generated m the storage ofdewatered fly ash along with other alleged carcinogens. Mr. Parrish asserts that the applicant failed to provide a model that indicates all the possible air emission sources. In addition to all of the foregoing, Mr. Parish indicates that throughout the permitting process, the applicants failed to set forth potential mitigating actions which would ameliorate all of the adverse consequces which he has specified. The court notes that the Parish affidavit has no data to corroborate the broad general defects decried, which is particularly notable given the purported expertise Of the affiant. The amended petition also includes an affidavit by George Wright, an air quality specialist who also asserts that the environmental assessment was defective. The Wright affidavit contains a litany of alleged deft iencies in the various submissions which, in pertinent part, are itemized as follows: 1) the subm ssion failed to include the emissions from the existing generating facility for the last five years; 2 the submission failed to include sufficient back up data; 3) the submission failed to include an adequate topographical layout or land use map for the surrounding area or maps including non-attainr tent areas;4)the submission failed to include any indication of the dimensions of the proposed build ngs and stacks;5)the submission failed to include an analysis of the shoreline fumigation at the site and an adequate dispersion model; 6) the submission failed to adequately address fugitive dust dmissions;7)the submission failed to include meteorological data from the site and, instead, submitted such data collected from Mac Arthur Airport (I I miles from the site) - a circumstance that is allegedly magnified by the fact that different air currents are present close to the Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 8 shore as opposed to those further inland; 8) similarly, the air quality data was gathered from Eisenhower Park in Nassau County instead of Port Jefferson and Mr. Wright claims that such measuring point is too distant to have any applicability to the proposed site and is not capable of measuring any pollutIon derived from the existing generators at Port Jefferson;9)other data was also collected from inappropriate sites; 10)the modeling analysis submitted failed to include analysis of ammonia, mercury, dioxin, arsenic and nickel and any monitoring for such hazards was not taken "down wind" where it would be likely to be discerned; 11) the submission failed to adequately address secondary particulates such as sulfates and nitrates and their potential interaction with ammonia emissions;'and 12) the submission failed to adequately address potential odor emissions. The amended petition is also accompanied by an attorney's affidavit which reiterates many of the points previously set forth above by the others. The attorney's affidavit dwells at great length upon the applicants' alleged failure to comply with the various local land use ordinances and presents several legal arguments for the judicial invalidation of all the approvals tendered to date. This affidavit also sets forth the alleged basis for invalidating the public taking,primarily asserting that the respondents failed to conduct a necessary public hearing and that no basis for such an exemption from such requirement exists. The Village attorney also asserts that there is no public purpose attendant to the taking. THE RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION The respondents LIPA and Keyspan have each appeared and submitted opposition to the request for injunctive relief as well as the underlying application in general. With respect to that portion of the opposing papers which relates to preliminary injunctive relief, as a practical matter such opposition is moot since there are currently no stays in place and the decision to be rendered herein will be dispositive of the underlying proceeding including the requests for preliminary injunctive relief. Moreover,as noted above,the parties had agreed to an initial submission schedule which was amended on consent numerous times to a date well beyond the scheduled completion date for the project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court notes that the proof submitted, which resulted in the lifting of the previously granted stays contained in the original order to show cause signed by Justice Oliver as well as the denial of the renewal of the underlying request contained in the amended order to show cause denied by the undersigned, entailed consideration of entirely different factors. Specifically,in each instance this court has indicated that,at that very preliminary juncture,the petitioners were notable to establish that the equities predominated in their favor or that there is a likelihood of success on the merits. Sheffield Towers Rehabilitation and Health Care Center v.Novello.—94(Second Dept.,2002). Therefore, the request for an immediate restraining order while the underlying matter was being considered was denied. To the extent that the amended petition alleges adverse consequences stemming from the actual construction of the plants, (emphasis added), said issue has been rendered moot by the completion of the facilities in July,2002. The pending request for preliminary injunctive reliefwill, Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 9 of necessity, seek to enjoin the continued operation of the plants and is considered herein. On May 9, 2002, the court received the amended answers of the respondents the New York Board on Electrical Generation Siting and the Environment and Maureen O. Helmer as Chairman of such Board. The',amended answer, in pertinent part, denies those allegations of the amended petition asserting that the actions of the respondent Board were arbitrary, capricious or otherwise flawed or illegal. The amended answer also sets forth two objections to the amended petition. The respondent Board alleges that petitioners Kagel,Mathews and Brentwood/Bayshore Breast Coalition did not appear before the Board and did not raise any objections to the Board and,therefore, have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to seekingjudicial review. Second,with respect to the petitioner Village of Poquott,the respondent Board asserts that said petitioner did not pursue its contention that Li!PA's option to acquire certain generating facilities of Keyspan combined with the existing generating operations on the site eliminates the project from the consideration and jurisdiction of the respondent Board and that,therefore,such argument was not preserved forjudicial review in the present proceeding. The amended answer affirmatively states that the actions of the respondent Board were at all times proper. The respondent Keyspan submitted affidavits in opposition to the amended petition. Kevin Maher, an environme ntal planner employed by consultants for Keyspan, submitted an affidavit containing a map which indicates that no part of the new construction lies within the Village of Poquott,although p�rtions of the complex itself which are not part of the project are within the boundaries of that illage(emphasis added). Because the generators are to be built on an existing site already housing other generators, there is little, if any, flora or fauna in the immediate construction zone. Mr.Maher indicates that the two generators to be constructed are state of the art plants which are operated by natural gas. He alleges that emissions are minimal and the plants contain devices designed to further limit (while providing better monitoring of) emissions. He states in direct opposition to the Wright affidavit that there will be no emissions ofineasurable amounts ofinercury, dioxins or nickel. He describes in technical jargon the methodologies used to construct aprospective model in accordance!,with EPA standards. He admits that his model did not take into account "building cavity impacts"because the emission would be released 265 feet above grade through a large stack. The useiof the proposed model was accepted by the Department of Environmental Conservation on October2,2001,alongwith issues to be analyzed in completing the environmental assessment. Mr. Maher further concedes that shoreline fumigation was not considered in determining dispersal modes but States that the inclusion of such factor is not necessary since the pattern is temporary and spatially transient (i.e., not capable of accurate predictability and consistency). Moreover, the localized factors he asserts are subordinate to the much larger mesoscale meteorological conditions. Sea breeze conditions he asserts are not part of the NYSDEC modeling protocol. MacArthur Airport was used as a source ofdata because the meteorological conditions can Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 10 be ascertained for a,five year period and establish the controlling larger conditions prevailing on Eastern Long Island. Similarly, the model used data from Babylon and Nassau County solely to measure the background air quality and mindful that their proximity to New York City would provide a more conservative base. Nonetheless, he asserts that the model did evaluate both the proposed source (new generator) along with impacts from the existing generators in arriving at a cumulative air quality assessment for the project area added to the worst case data derived from the Babylon Nassau County sites. At all times the model assumed a worst case scenario in making its assessments. Based on this alleged worst case scenario, the combined air quality concentrations do not threaten to exceed any applicable air quality standards. Use of on site meteorological data from Port Jefferson instead of data gathered at MacArthur Airport would not result in data that is so disparate as to be in excess of any applicable standards. Addressing the allegations about failure to take into account the cumulative effect of the existing project with the proposed project both as to the two new generators as well as all the additional generators included in the project(10), Mr. Maher says such cumulative evaluation was done and is set forth at p. 2-7-10 of the environmental assessment. The cumulative impacts again allegedly do not exceed any applicable standard. The same result prevails for fine particulate matter on a primary as well as on a secondary basis. Mr.Maher asserts that secondary reaction of ammonia and sulfates was considered and found not to violate any standards. In this regard, he directly contradicts the:Wright affidavit and states that the EPA does not regard ammonia as a hazardous air pollutant,that the emission of such gas is less than that permitted to be dispersed in the air and that none can be discerned at ground level. Mr. Maher states that an odor assessment was not done because these plants will not emit any odors. Mr.Maher further states that,using the forms provided by the NYSDEC, the application set forth all environmental control devices, emission rates and ambient air quality modeling results and all other information required by the NYSDEC. Fugitive emissions were excluded because,once operational,there will no such emissions from these plants. With respect to the local land use scheme, Mr. Maher indicates that, since the site of the construction project i�upon the grounds of the existing generating facility, it is in accord with the existing land.use plan Mr.Maher claims it comports in general with the Zoning Code ofthe Village of Port Jefferson in wl�ich it is located,except for height restrictions of that municipality. The local height restriction is Violated by the presence of the 265 foot stack which is needed to preserve air quality (as discussed!above). He alleges that there will be no additional visual impacts meaning solely that there are no sites in the vicinity from which the old stacks are obscured or otherwise not visible from which the new stacks will be visible. Inferentially, there will be numerous sites in which both the old and new stacks will be visible. Allegedly,the new plant will only increase the noise at the sites within established norms. Mr. Maher indicates that storm water run-off during construction was minimized and that, upon completion of construction, there would be no impact of additional run-off as a consequence of the project. More',importantly, the new plants would not require the use of harbor waters for coolants and there was no danger that pollutants would be discharged into the harbor or that the Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 11 water temperature would be adversely affected. Traffic flow will increase temporarily during construction but increased traffic thereafter is anticipated to be almost imperceptible. The respondent LIPA has submitted several affidavits to demonstrate what it perceives as errors in the facts set forth in the petition. The affidavit of Ed Grilli states that the property on which the project is to be built will ultimately be titled (emphasis added)in LIPA, an agency of the State of New York. The ite of the project is not located in the petitioner Village of Poquott except for the utilization of 1,425 foot easement for access and egress which is intended to be utilized for underground power lines. The Grilli affidavit also sets forth the alleged need for the project and the rationale for the site election in question. Allegedly, environmental factors weighed heavily in the site selection. Inferentially,the Grilli affidavit implies that any other site selection would have more severe impacts on th� alternative sites. The respond4nt LIPA also submits the affidavit of Stephen Rosen, another environmental analyst, who was di ctly responsible for the environmental assessment that led to the issuance of the negative declarat on which is at the heart of the present litigation. His responsibilities included a site specific analys s as well as a"global'analysis encompassing the potential cumulative impact of the overall project Obe construction of 10 pocket generators in Nassau and Suffolk Counties). Mr. Rosen states that,alt ough the proposed action is a Type I action and presumptively will affect land ater use,w ,air quali and aesthetics to some degree(and thereby would seem to require a full blown environmental assessment),the detailed analysis undertaken showed that the project would not have any significant adverse impacts that otherwise might have been presumed whether viewed separately or cumulatively with!the other aspects of the LIPA upgrade or the existing facilities. Mr.Rosen,i pertinent part,reiterates the fact that the project is sited in an industrial zoned area (totally outside the Village of Poquott) and, since it is located on a site containing existing generators,it compo s with the general land use scheme. The only aspect ofthe project that deviates from the existing I d use pattern is the proposed construction of a 265 foot high stack which exceeds the applicable land use code. Mr.Rosen notes that,notwithstanding the fact that,as a State agency,LIPA does not have to comply with such requirements,nonetheless the height involved is not greater than thatof the existing stacks. Thus, Mr. Rosen states that there will be little incremental visual cange in the surrounding environs, that any traffic condition is temporary in nature and,that,post construction, it will be negligible. Air quality is not adversely affected as indicated by the otherproofsubmitted byrespondents. In particular, Mr. Ro�sen states that the emissions of all potential pollutants is below applicable thresholds including Oarticulate diameters. This conclusion was true for both the general (global) project as well as the specific site in question. The Rosen affidavit avers that these particular generators are designed so that there are no possible odors emitted. Noise levels were seriously considered in the environmental assessment and were found to be within acceptable limits,to wit,4dba,whereas the required levels permit as much Village of Poquott v. Cahill • • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 12 as 6dbas. Additionally, there are no discernible vibrations that result from the operation of the generators. The Rosen a davit also indicates that water discharged from the plant as well as potential storm runoff did not impact the site. The plant will discharge 4,320 gallons of waste water per day. However,the water i s tested and placed in an oil separating holding tank before its discharge. Storm runoff'is insignificai it. The proposed facility will consume about 160,000 gallons of water which will be obtained thrc ugh the Suffolk County Water Authority which is less than .02% of the daily recharge into the aqi ifer. Mr.Rosen co cludes that the project has no discernible negative impacts either cumulatively or separately as to this site. LIPA states that it believes that there are no feasible alternatives with lesser environmental)impacts available. The October 0,2002,submissions by the respondents include an affidavit of Roy D. Hunt, a surveyor who indicates that the delineation of the boundary between the incorporated village of Poquott and the inco orated village of Port Jefferson contained in one of the court submissions was inaccurate. This affidavit once again asserts that the subject construction (emphasis added) lies entirely outside the titioner village. The October �0,2002,response of the respondent Keyspan contains an affidavit of Dr.A.C. Crouch which enumerates in excruciating detail the alleged flaws in the September 5, 2002, submission of the pe itioner village. From a strictly legal point of view, neither of these "latest" submissions of the petitioners should be considered by the court since neither of these competing contentions was presented to the administrative agency for its consideration,nor has any explanation for the failure to do 3o been persuasively offered (see, e.g., Freer v. State Tax Commission 98 A.D.2d 834, 470 N.Y.S.2d 499(Third Dept., 1983) and Sutton Rea1�Co. v. Higgins, 174 A.D.2d 483, 571 N.Y.S.2d 260 (First Dept., 1991)). In an Article 78 proceeding it is inappropriate for a court to make a determination based on factual data which is not part of the record below. Flan CourtRealty Co. v. B 211and.265 A.D.2d 327,696 N.Y.S.2d 225(Second Dept., 1999);Moschella v. Romano 110 A.D. d 702,488 N.Y.S.2d 21 (Second Dept., 1985). Nonetheless,by virtue of its decision of Septemb 30,2002,the court has allowed such items to become a part of the record on which this determinat.on is made. Condemnation and the Land Use Questions The petitioner Village of Poquott has asserted in its first cause of action that the owner of the property in question is Keyspan and that there has been no compliance with the local land use plan. The respondents have denied that assertion. More significantly,the respondents claim that the entire site in question is or is about to be owned by LIPA, an agency of the State of New York. In this regard, the court note that there can be no dispute that, from the very inception of the plan and throughout all the applications to the various regulatory agencies, it was always stated that the site Village ofPoquott v. Cahill • • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 13 in question was owned by Keyspan through one of its subsidiaries and that the proposal called for the ultimate acquisition of the site by LIPA and the leasing back of the site in question to Keyspan to facilitate electrical energy generation through the use of natural gas turbines. The amendment of the petition virtually concedes the immunity of LIPA from local land use regulation. Instead, by virtue of the amended petition, the petitioner Village seeks to invalidate: 1) the condemnation in general, and the fin ings of the condemnor with respect to the public use of the taking; and 2) the public necessity for xempting the taking from the hearing requirements of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law("E PU). EDPL § 201 �rovides, in pertinent part, as follows: Except as provided herein, prior to acquisition, the condemnor, in order to inform the public and to review the public use to be served by a F roposed public project and the impact on the environment and residt nts of the locality where such project will be constructed,shall condi.ct a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of this artich at a location reasonably proximate to the property which may be acquired for such project. The respondents con ede that they did not conduct a public hearing in furtherance of the proposed taking. Instead, they claim that they have issued a finding that a basis for an exemption exists. EDPL § 206 provides: The condemnor shall be exempt from compliance with the provisions of this)article when: (A) Pz rmant to other state, federal, or local law or regulation it consid rs and submits factors similar to those enumerated in subdivision (B) of section two hundred four, to a state, federal or local vemmental agency,board or commission before proceeding with it a acquisition and obtains a license, a permit, a certificate of public onvenience or necessity or other similar approval from such agency,board, or commission or; (B)putsuant to article VII or article VIII of the public service law it obtained a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need or; (C) puifsuant to other law or regulation it undergoes or conducts or offers to conduct prior to an acquisition one or more public hearings upon notice to the public and owners ofproperty to be acquired, and provided further that factors similar to those enumerated in subdiviFsion(13)ofsection two hundred four herein maybe considered at such public hearings,or; (D) when in the opinion of the condemnor the acquisition is de Village of Poquott v. Cahill • • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 14 minims in nature so that the public interest will not be prejudiced by the construction of the project or because of an emergency situation the p blic interest will be endangered by any delay caused by the public hearing requirement in this article.[emphasis added] (E)w lien it complies with the procedures contained in section 41.34 of the mental hygiene law. The determi ation of the State agency is subject to judicial review in strict adherence with the provisions of the PDPL which vests exclusive jurisdiction of the review of such questions in the respective Appellate Divisions. EDPL § 207 provides as follows: (A) Any person or persons jointly or severally, aggrieved by the conde or's determination and findings made pursuant to section two hundredfour of this article, may seek judicial review thereof by the appell to division of the supreme court, in the judicial department embracing the county wherein the proposed facility is located by the filing I of a petition in such court within thirty days after the condemnor's completion of its publication of its determination and findin s pursuant to section two hundred four herein. Such petition shall )e accompanied by proof of service of a demand on the conde imor to file with said court a copy of a written transcript of the record of the proceeding before it,and a copy of its determination and findin . Upon receipt of such petition and demand,the condemnor shall forthwith deliver to the court a copy of the record and a copy of its determination and findings. The proceeding shall be heard on the record without requirement of reproduction.If such proposed public improNement is located in more than one judicial department such proceeding may be brought in any one, but only one of such departments and all such proceedings with relation to any single public roject shall be consolidated with that first filed. (B) Th.-jurisdiction of the appellate division of the supreme court shall be exclusive and its judgment and order shall be final subject to review by the court of appeals in the same manner and form and with the same effect as provided for appeals in a special proceeding. All such p#oceedings s hall b e h eard a nd d etermined b y t he a ppellate division of the supreme court, and by the court of appeals, as expeditiously as possible and with lawful preference over other mattersL (C) Oe court shall either confirm or reject the condemnor's determipation and findings. The scope of review shall be limited to whether: (1) the proceeding was in conformity with the federal and state Village of Poquott v, Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 15 constitutions, (2) the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor's statutory jurisdiction or authority, (3) the condemnor's determination and findings were made in accordance with procedures set forth in this article and with article eight Of the environmental conservation law, and (4) a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquiition. In view of th fact that the proposed vendor(Keyspan) and the condemnor(LIPA) have a unity of purpose to inure the inviolability of the taking,both respondents have questioned whether any of the petitioner have standing to attack the condemnation. The court concludes that there is little likelihood that t ie petitioners would succeed in invalidating or enjoining the completion of the condemnation or tha the equities would predominate in petitioners' favor. Accordingly, no basis for injunctive relief exists (see, W.T. Grant Co. v. Srori. 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1981)) and any request for a preliminary injunction is denied. The exclusiv remedy for one complaining about defects in the condemnation process is an application to the Appellate Division. See EDPL § 207 (B). The branch of the petition seeking a judgment of this cou nullifying the condemnation must be denied because this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. To the extent that some analysis is required to address the remaining legal issues raised herein, the court concludes that there is no impropriety to the condemnation or the decision of LIPA toexempt itself from the public hearing requirement of EDPL. The condemnor took several actions that fall squarely within the parameters envisioned by the Legislature in providing an exemption mechanism. Specifically,the facts that the respondents successfully sought multiple permits and licenses from an appropriate State agency, as well as obtaining what was, in essence, a certificate of environmental compatibility and that, as an incident to such applications, hearings were held at which the public was afforded an opportunity to be heard, satisfies EDPL § 206 (A)(B)(C). See: JVew York State Elec. & Gas Corp v Karas 85 A.D.2d 758,445 N.Y.S. 2d 279(Third Dept., 198 )cited by the Appellate Division, Second Department,in Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 v, J&JDod a Inc..213 A.D.2d 409,635 N.Y.S.2d 233 (Second Dept., 1995). Moreover, the court is satisfied that the respondents have established that an emergency situation exists and that the public interest would have been endangered by any delay caused by the public hearing requirement ml accordance with EDPL§206(D). The respondents'proof demonstrates that, during the summer o 2001, severe energy demands were placed on the respondents' electrical generating capacity on Long Island. Given the projected growth in energy consumption and dependent on variable weather conditions,the level of electrical generating capacity was below the levels that prudence would warrant. The failure of the respondents to have sufficient generating capacity during the p ak demands of the summer months for 2002 could have had catastrophic consequences to the p�blic health, comfort and economic well-being of Long Island. Thus, the condemnor Is filing of roposed findings which contained a statement setting forth the emergency basis for exempting it4f from conducting a public hearing was sufficient. See: Rockland County Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 16 Sewer District No.l v.J&JDod eInc. supra. Moreover,by virtue of the prior public hearings held attendant to the van us permits issued,the condemnor has further satisfied its burden of proving its right to the exemption set forth in the EPDL § 206(D). See: New York State Elec & Gas Cow. v Karas,supra. In this regard, the issues raised herein are identical to the thrust of the seventh branch for relief contained in the amended petition, wherein the petitioners assert that the respondents' determination that there is an urgent public need for the additional generating capacity is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. In this regard,the petitioners have utterly failed to meet their burden of proof and their assessments of the power needs of the Long Island community are conjectural at best and, to some extent, predicated on projects that may or not be consummated sometime in the future. At the time LIPA began the process of providing additional generating capacity, it had no way of knowing if ariy of these other alternatives would materialize in time to meet the potential power demands for this past summer. The respondents have persuasively established that the electricity generated by the plants in question was required to meet the potential peek demands of the Long Island co unity during the summer of 2002. That potential demand was dictated by factors which, by th it very nature, were not certain; therefore, prudence required that there be enough generating capacity to meet a"worst case"scenario. The fact that subsequent events(to wit, the completion of the facility, the intervention of federal authorities assuring additional sources of power and the absen a of a"worst case"scenario over the peak summer months in 2002) did not negate the emergency nature of the application for condemnation when it was initiated. Whetherthe power generated by he facility is needed in the future to meet additional power demands in the context of the genera ing capacity is another issue altogether. Accordingly,the petitioners' seventh request for relief must be dismissed. In pertinent p�rt, EDPL § 402 provides as follows: (A)hi all acquisitions under the court of claims jurisdiction provided in subdivision (A) of section five hundred one herein, prior to acquiring property,the state of New York,within the time prescribed by section four hundred one of this law, shall: (1) file in the main office of the agency,department, or authority or public benefit corporation for which the acquisition is being made, the on ginal tracing of the acquisition map or a microfihn or computer digitized copy of the original acquisition map of any real property which it deems necessary for purposes connected with a proposed public!, project, indicating and describing in each instance the partic lar easement, interest or right, in the real property that is acquir d including metes and bounds or section, block and lot numbers; and (2) noofy condemnees by first class mail that the condemning party is now!taking steps to acquire such property,thereupon,subject to the i Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 17 provi ions of this law, the people of the state of New York, their offict is and agents may immediately enter upon and take possession of the real property so described for any and all purposes connected with he proposed public project; and (3) fi e a certified copy of such acquisition map in the office of the count y clerk or register of each county in which such property or any portion thereof is situated, and thereupon, the acquisition of the property by the state, described in such map shall be deemed complete and title to such property shall be vested in the state.... The respondents assert without contradiction that they have complied with the procedure set forth above. Nothing submitted by the petitioners warrants a contrary conclusion. Therefore, title to the subject premises will ultimately vest in LIPA(or its designee), an agency of the State of New York. See: Voorhis State, 107 Misc.2d 956,436 N.Y.S.2d 187 (N.Y. Ct.Cl., 1981); EDPL§ 402 (b)(5). Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis,all issues affecting the propriety ofthe condemnation proceeding fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Appellate Division. To date, the court is unaware of aiiy proceeding pending in the Appellate Division. Whether or not the site in question is subject to local land use regulation is dependent on two critical factors. First,the burden is upon the petitioners to establish that the site in question is located within the Village of Poquott. Second, the petitioners must demonstrate the invalidity of the respondent's finding that the project substantially complies with the local land use scheme and that (to the extent there is a potential violation of such local laws)compliance would be impossible. With respect I o the first issue,the parties sharply contest whether the site of the property is located within the Village of Poquott. The court is at a loss as to how such an issue can seriously be disputed. The couit has reviewed the various submissions and concludes that the petitioners have not met their burden c f establishing that any part of the new construction of the building housing the new generators is located within the boundaries of the Village of Poquott. The court concludes that the respondents have i stablished through aerial photographs,the sworn affidavits of two individuals charged with such knowledge as to where the building was to be constructed, and the affidavit of a licensed surveyor thatthe construction site is located solely outside the jurisdicti%on of the petitioner Village. Given the nature of the type of facility to be constructed it is conceded that certain rights of way which do transverse the boundaries of the Village are to be utilized. Since such rights of way are already being utilized for the identical purpose and do not entail any construction which might require any binding municipal approval,the court fails to see any basis for the Village's invocation of the land use power conferred upon it by the State of New York. In light of the Fact that two separate justices of this court as well as a panel of the Appellate Division have implic tly ruled that the construction of the subject facility is located outside the jurisdiction of the Vill age of Poquott,the petitioners have a heavy burden to establish that the prior judicial determinationS were erroneous when issued. The petitioners have failed to meet this burden. Village of Poquott v Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 18 The submission of an unswom report by engineers employed by the Village, unsupported by corroborative proof and without debunking the sworn exhibits previously cited as dispositive by the court,is simply insufficient. Such issue,if to be seriously entertained and ifpertinent to the outcome of the ligation, mus of necessity be addressed by a licensed surveyor or other experts who can delineate the precise oundary lines of the Village as well as the boundaries of the subject parcel and the subject construction site. In contrast, the respondent Keyspan has submitted an affidavit of a surveyor which supports its point of view. However, as indicated below, placement of the construction site in Or outside the boundaries of the petitioner Village is not dispositive of the ultimate determination to be rendered herein. Even if the petitioners had established that the buildings housing the generators were located within the boundarie4 of the petitioner Village,the project in question is still not subject to the local zoning ordinances. first, the respondents analyzed the local land use scheme at great length. The information submitte to the siting board set forth the land use scheme in which the site was located and analyzed the impacts of the proposed generators on such plan, and it was found that there was not a substantial violation of the land use plan in a general sense since there were already existing generators of larger d mensions in the same general vicinity. Specifically,the proof submitted to the siting board showed a impossibility of complying with certain provisions of the local ordinances. One example is the eight restrictions in the municipality in question (i.e., The Village of Port Jefferson)would beg#eatly exceeded by the height ofthe stack for the proposed generating facilities. Building an environmentally sound plant in compliance within the context of that height restriction is not possible.. Having established that compliance with the local zoning ordinance was considered and found not possibl or practicable in accordance with the statutory scheme imposed by the State of New York, the respondents are relieved from any obligation to conform to the local ordinance. Public Service Law§ 130,172;Public Authorities Law§§ 1014, 1020-s. Even absent such explicit statutory authority, ei her Poquott or Port Jefferson's land use policies must be subservient to the broader community n ed for additional generating power especially where, as here, there is some indicia that the State id not intend local control of such issue and an opportunity for local land use concerns has been addressed in the citing process. See:In Re City ofRochester, 72 N.Y.2d338,533 N.Y.S.2d 702 (1988).' The petitioner$have argued that the subject project is a major electrical generating facility, contrary to the findings upon which the exemption from the siting board was granted. Ironically, if the project had been characterized as a major electrical generating facility as defined by Public Service Law §160,it would have been expressly exempted from any municipal review or approval by virtue of the application of Public Service Law § 172 (1). The fact that the facility in question is not deemed a major generating facility does not automatically open the door to local municipal oversight. The legislative pattern found throughout the Public Service Law and the Public Authorities Law appe s designed to create a mechanism to channel`local input"for major facilities through the utility or p�blic authority regulatory scheme. See, e.g.,Public Service Law§§ 130, 172 and Public Authorities Law §§ 1014, 1020-s. Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 19 The failure to provide such an outlet for local involvement in the siting of"mince,facilities, or"pocket"or"ancillary"facilities, cannot be construed as an abdication to the locality to govern regulation of construction of such facilities. Even applying the former more restrictive "governmental/proprietary" test, now in judicial disfavor, our courts have held that, where the Legislature has mandated that providing certain services(such as the generating and distribution of electrical power throughout Long Island)is to be a public"governmental function",the use of land attendant to that fun tion is immune from local regulation except to the extent that the enabling or other subsequent legislation provides otherwise. Cf Koch v.Dyson, 85 A.D.2d 346,448 N.Y.S.2d 698 (Second Dept., 11982). The result is more compelling when applying the more liberalized balancing of the competing"public interest"analysis now required bylnReRochester,supra.,which mandates that the local land use needs of the Villages must be subservient to the more compelling . needs of the community at large for other public services (such as electric generation of energy). Any contrary holding would place the health, safety and well being of the broader Long Island community at the whim of restrictive land use policies of any municipality where such a facility might be needed to be located. To the extent that the legislative scheme may be viewed by some as having failed to provide an adequate outlet for local involvement,such oversight may only be cured by the Legislature if it deems it so advisable. Of course,it is possible that the Legislature presumed that these so called"Pocket plants"had so few minor consequences that local involvement was not warranted. In either case,the petitioners have failed to submit any cases which would indicate that the State has made itself subservient to political subdivisions of its own creation in the exercise of its legislativelyimposed obligations to provide sufficient electrical generating capacity to the electric consuming public. Accordingly, the first branch and any other branches of the amended petition (nine and ten) which peek injunctive relief predicated on an alleged violation of any local law are dismissed. Similarly' the eighth branch of the amended petition, which seeks nullification of the LIPA's acquisition of the realty in question, is dismissed. Public Service Law Article X Exemption Public Service Law Article X provides a mechanism to site the location of major generating facilities throughout a State of New York. Public Service Law § 160 defines a major generating facility; one that gen rates 80,000 kilowatts(80 megawatts)ormore. The amended petition asserts that the proposal to onstruct `pocket generators" below. the threshold set by the statute is a subterfuge to escape a protections afforded the public through Article X ofthe Public Service Law. Alternatively,the petitioners claim that since there are 10 sites selected throughout Long Island for such generators that th y should be considered cumulatively or at least the two located at the subject site should be consideied as one or in a combination with the existing generator which provides 200 megawatts of electricity. If the generating capacities of the individual generators are combined,the cumulative increased generating capacity would greatly exceed the 80,000 kilowatt(80 megawatts) threshold. Thus,petitioners contend the project should be construed as a major generating facility. The decision of the Siting Board dated December 10, 2001, decided the issue adversely to the position advocated by the petitioners. x Village of Poquott v Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 20 At the outset, the court notes that it previously severed all claims posed against the Public Service Commission and directed that they be properly venued in Albany County. Based on that decision, branch seven of the amended petition which sought to annul the certificate of public necessity issued by the NYS Public Service Commission is no longer before the court. The court believes branch three of the amended petition, which sought to invalidate the ruling of the NYS Public Service Commission "exempting" the project from scrutiny pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law, should also have been heard with any other claims against the NYS Public Service CommissionF Public Service Law § 160 defines "board" (i.e., the siting board for major generating facilities)land sets forth its composition. Included in the definition is a phrase which states the siting board..."shall be within the department[i.e.,the Department of Public Service]".... The siting board is merely a division or a subdepartment of the of the Department of Public Service. The petitioners have asserted that this is a claim against the Public Service Commission, an entity against which proceedings must be venued in Albany County.See CPLR§ 506(b)(2). Nonetheless, all of the parties have regarded this branch as one that remained before this court' and so the court will rule on the issues presented. The decision Of the Siting Board in granting the declaration that the project was exempt from Article X of the POlic Service Law noted, in pertinent part, that its prior decision to define generating capacity a., the operating capacity to supply the system rather than the theoretical output that could be,generat d by the device in question, has received judicial approval. See,Matter o U rose v. Power Authority o New Yor 285 A.D.2d 603, 729 N.Y.S. 42, app. Iv. den., 97 N.Y.2d 605, 737 N.Y.S.2d 53 (2001). The Siting Board reiterated its prior policy of holding an applicant to its commitment no to exceed the 80,000 kilowatt(80 megawatt) threshold and in disregarding that the potential capa�ityofsuch facility is potentially in excess ofthat threshold. An administrative agency is well within its rights to define for itself the application of the statute which creates it and the application of its Iegislatively mandated function as long as it is consistent in such application and such application iE not otherwise inherently unreasonable or patently illogical. West Irondequoit Teachers Assn v. H Isby, 35 N.Y.2d 46, 358 N.Y.S.2d 720 (1974); Bus v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation.32 N.Y. d 955,347 N.Y.S.2d 206(1973). Thus,the determination of the Siting Board in regarding the two new generators,when viewed separately,as being exempt from Public Service Law Article X, is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Similarly, the decision of the Board to view the project as separate ano distinct from the existing generator is also not arbitrary or capricious upon the same principle.', 'll other arguments as to the propriety of the exemption are likewise without merit. Accordingly, bkanch 3 of the amended petition is dismissed. 2 The court notes;that the Department of Public Service and the Public Service Commission are distinct agencies of NYS government. Only actions against the Commission need be Yenned in Albany while actions against the Department need not be so venued. The Siting Board is part of the Public Service Department,as indicated above,and suits may be Yenned wherever appropriate. 'As to the segmentation aspect of such argument,see infra. _ Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 21 The Sufficiency of the Negative Declaration The primary purpose of Article 8 of New York's Environmental Conservation Law is to require consideration of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action, to be weighed against social,economic and other considerations. ECL§ 8-0103(7). The statute contemplates not merely a recognition bfpotential environmental hazards,but requires a good faith attempt to actually minimize or avoid ",.consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement...."ECL§$-0109(8)[emphasis added]. The statute also requires an intelligent articulation of the reasons offer'ied for the proposed action in light of those considerations of impacts and mitigating actions. See:Philipstown Dirt Roads Association v Town ofPhilipstown 246 A.D.2d 656, 668 N.Y.S.2d 51 (Second Dept., 1998). At the heart of this litigation is the assertion contained in the amended petition that the negative declaration issued by LIPA as the "lead agency"on November 13, 2001, was improperly issued in its environmental assessment form(EAF) and as such should be set aside. In essence,the amended petition asserts that the respondent LIPA failed to take the hard look at the potential adverse environmental impacts of the projects as required under SEQRA. The first step in the SEQRA process is for the determination of lead agency status. In the present case, LIPA deemed itself to be the lead agency. Such action was not taken without any precedential basis. Inother similar situations,LIPA has acted as lead agency. The propriety of such action was confirmed'by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conversation in the Glenwood Landing case. See affirmation of Nelson Johnson, ex. 10, citing DEC case #01-17- 1633. The Commissioner's finding that LIPA was the lead agency in a virtually identical set of circumstances warrants the same outcome in the instant case. See: Matter of Charles A Field Delivery Service, Inc 66 N.Y.2d 516,498 N.Y.S.2d 111 (1985). Moreover, the determination of an agency interpreting and applying the laws and regulations by which it is governed should not be set aside unless they are patently absurd or unreasonable. LumDking v. Department o Social Services 45 N.Y.S.2d 351,408 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1978); Great Eastern Liquor Corp V. State Liquor Authority, 30 A.D.24 307. 292 N.Y.S.2d 715 (Second Dept., 1968). Particularly where the interpretation of a statute or its application entails specialized knowledge or expertise and an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom, it is appropriate to defer to the governmental agency�harged with the responsibility for administering the statute and such agency's determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by a rational basis. Claim of Gruber 89 N.Y.2d 225, 652 N.Y.$.2d 589(1996);Albano v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Dept 286 A.D.2d 734, 730 N.Y.S.2d 159 (Second Dept., 2001). In the present case,the record shows that the respondents genuinelybelieved the construction would not be undertaken in the petitioner Village. The petitioner Village did not appear to be an "involved agency"(see 6 NYCRR 617.2(s)). The petitioner Village has therefore failed to establish that the notice provided to it was inadequate or in violation or the regulatory scheme as applied by Village ofPoquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 22 the respondent DEC. Thus,the suggestion bypetitioner Village that it should have been designated as lead agency has no foundation in any applicable law or regulation. The project at issue is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Village and the Village has a predisposition to prevent the project at any cost. Designation of the Village as lead agency appears to be diametrically opposed to the legislative scheme, which contemplates that the lead agency will be at least either a bona fide neutral or an advocate of the proposed undertaking, taking environmental factors into account. The next step is to determine whether the proposed project is likely to have a significant or insignificant impact on the environment. Certain types of actions are deemed to be insignificant and require no further environmental analysis. Other actions are presumed to have a potentially significant effect on the environment and those actions (such as the instant project) require the preparation of an environmental assessment form(EAF)in a manner required by the Department of Environmental Conservation. The form provides the manner in which consideration of potential environmental impacts can be had. If,in completing the form,the lead agency indicates that one or more significant adverse environmental impacts may arise, then a more detailed analysis of those potential impacts is required in a more formal and detailed environmental assessment forms(EIS). Implicit in the tactical battle between proponents and opponents of a given project is that when a thorough,intelligent environmental assessment is required,it entails an extraordinary commitment of time and expense which in some cases so negatively impacts the economics or time constraints of a proposed project as to render the same financially or otherwise impractical. Thus, the regulatory scheme requires that the submitted form set forth a reasoned basis supported by appropriate documentation to facilitate a comparison of the impacts that might result from the proposed action against the various criteria promulgated by the DEC. See 6 NYCRR 617.7 (b) (3) (4), (C). By preparation of the form and giving proper weight to the mandated criteria and exploring the impacts)and potential methodologies to mitigate or negate such impacts,it is possible (but highly unlikely) for a given applicant to negate the implicit presumption that Type I actions (such as the present application)will have a significant impact on the environment. See 6 NYCRR 617.4(a)(1),617.7(2) . Stated another way,where an action falls within the Type I classification, there is an extremely low threshold in concluding that the EAF will require the more detailed EIS. Village of Tarrytown W.Planning Board of Village ofSleepvHollow 292 A.D.2d 617,741 N.Y.S.2d 44, Iv. app. den., 98 N.Y.2d 609(2002);S.P.A.C.E. v. Hurley 291 A.D.2d 563,739 N.Y.S.2d 164 (Second Dept.,2002),,In the present case LIPA acknowledged that the proposed project was a Type I project,but nonetheless,determined that a negative declaration was warranted. The real heart of this litigation is whether that determination was proper. The present care is one of those uniquely rare instances in which a negative declaration for a Type I action is appropriate. Ina proceeding which sought judicial review ofa negative declaration of the identical electrical generating turbines in a highly urbanized setting,this court(Knipe],JSC) found the negative declaration was not arbitrary and capricious. On appeal,the Appellate Division Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 23 reversed and directed an EIS with respect to a more detailed environmental impact statement with respect to 2.5M particulate emissions, stating as follows: "In light of the undisputed potential adverse health effects that can result from PM 2.5 emissions,we conclude that NYPA failed to take the requisite "hard look" at this area of environmental concern. An EIS i&required if the proposed project"may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact' (6 NYCRR 617.7Qa][1]..[emphasis supplied..]. The analysis undertaken by NYPA, in which it assumed that all PM 10 emissions are PM 2.5 emissions is not sufficiently detailed in the EAF[emphasis added] and is pot an adequate substitute for addressing the health impacts of PM 15 emissions. Thus, NYPA should have issued a positive declaration and prepared an EIS(see,Matter ofSvrop v City Council o the QN of Yonkers 282 A.D.2d 466,722 N.Y.S.2d 741;Matter o Omni �artners V. County of Nassau, supra, at 443, 654 N.Y.S.2d 824; Ratter of West Branch Conservation Assn v Planning Bd. of Town gfClarkstown, supra, 207 A.D.2d at 841, 616 N.Y.S.2d 550; Matted of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd., 137 A.D.2d 601,524 N.Y.S.2d 492).Accordingly,the matter is remitted to NYPA so that an EIS may be prepared (see, Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn v PlanningBd_ofTown ofClarkstown supra,at 841, 616 N.Y.S.2d 550; Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planni�e Bd. supra). Since construction on the project is almost complete the injunction granted herein is stayed until January 31, 2002, to afford NYPA an opportunity to comply with SEQRA(see, Matter of Silvereun Studios v.-Power Auth of State of MY, 285 A.D.2d'!, 598, 729 N.Y.S.2d 47 [decided herewith] )." Uorose v. Power Authority of State of New York 285 A.D.2d 603, 729 N.Y.S.�d 42 (Second Dept., 2001), affd., 97 N.Y.2d 605, 737 N.Y.S.2d 53 (2001). The only deficiency in the EAF submitted in Uprose(supra.)was its insufficiently detailed analysis of the health impacts of PM 2.5 emissions. In all other respects, the use of the EAF for the other categories was ratified. Moreover,with respect to the one deficiency noted,the Appellate Division did not order a full blown EIS as to the entire project,but merely as to the one troublesome item of concern. Significantly!(and inexplicably), the court did not delay the construction of the plants pending such analysis ( mewhat at odds with what is generally contemplated when the strictures of the EPTL are not followed)and allowed the narrow EIS to be submitted at a later date(after the completion of the construction and start up of the generators) at which time ultimate judicial approval was rendered . The respondents in this proceeding assert without contradiction that, in formulating the subject EAF, they took the criticism contained in the U rose decision (supra.) to -Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 24 heart and performed the very analysis which eventually received judicial imprimatur through the ultimate dismissal of the Uprose proceeding. Thus,the veryEAF for the identical generating facility and the finding that the proposed generators pose no public health hazard in the context of a highly urbanized setting (with a far greater density of population than is present in Poquott) has been judicially approved. In support of this conclusion the respondents have submitted the affidavit of Dr. Laura Greene, a senior scientist in the field of toxicology associated with MIT, dated April 24, 2002, in which Dr. Greene states that,to the extent that science is able to ascertain which forms of PM2.5 are likely not to harm the health, the proposed plant poses no known potential harm to the public health and safety. Moreover,natural gas powered generators are the environmentally safest (i.e.,posing the most minimal health or other adverse environmental risks) currently available. In view of these circumstances,which appear far more compelling than the record in the Uprose case, supra., this court cannot ignore the clear and unequivocal holding of the Appellate Division in that case. Nor have any Credible distinguishing factors been demonstrated from which the court might conclude that the matter before it is not identical to that which has already been judicially deemed sufficient in Uprosesupra.). The facts presented here indicate that the applicant has considered in great detail potential adverse effects dealing with PM2.5 particulates and proposed mitigating steps wn that were derived from and found satisfactory in accordance with prior judicial holdings. In such circumstances,the finding of a negative declaration is not improper per se.See,Merson v.McNa11v. 90 N.Y.2d 742, 665 h1.Y.S.2d 605 (1997). Accordingly, branch two of the amended petition and each and every branch of the petition which is predicated upon an allegation that the EAF was improperly issued must be and hereby are dismissed. The Air State Facility Permit and Acid Rain Permits The gravamen of the petitioners' fourth and fifth requests for relief is that the Air State Facility Permit and the Acid Rain Permit were improperly issued because the respondent Cahill failed to consider the combined discharges from the two pocket generators and the existing plant at the Port Jefferson locale. Although not explicitly so raised in those specific branches of the petition, is the closely related argument that the proposed project was for ten such pocket plants to be located throughout Nassau and Suffolk counties and that the respondent Commissioner failed to take into account the cumulative affects of the total air pollution discharges of the proposed plants in conjunction with all of the existing plants in the Long Island area. In other words, the petitioners allege that considerations of cumulative impacts, if any,were too narrow in scope. That assertion appears to be incorrect as clearly indicated by the aforementioned affidavit of Laura C. Greene. In pertinent part, Dr. Greene states in her affidavit dated April 24, 2002, as follows: "LIPA and Keyspan also performed a`cumulative impact analysis'of the Port Jefferson Energy Center with the Keyspan existing Port Jefferson Power Station and the other four proposed facilities that are part of the project .... operation of the proposed facility would not Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 25 result in an exceedance of any applicable health based air quality standard. Thus, even assuming a worst-case modeling assumptions, in which the emission from an existing facility are`double counted' - since the emissions are also included in background- there is no expected harm to public health."Greene affidavit, at p. 4, 15. The model respondents utilized contained an evaluation ofthe discharge from the combined sources. Such an analysis is absolutely required by 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag] which proscribes a segmented consideration of a project. See, e.g.,Matter ofLonz Is. Pine Barrens Society. v. Planning Bd of Town ofBrookhaven, 204 A.D.2d 548,611 N.Y.S.2d 917(Second Dept., 1994). Having so ruled, the court observes that the legitimate concerns of the petitioners (somewhat acknowledged by respondent) is that the existing plants are not as efficient as the proposed plants in preventing discharge of the very pollutants that the petitioners claim pose the greatest danger to their community. But the petitioners do not seek the replacement of the existing plants with more environmentally sound plants, an approach that to some extent is inconsistent with their ostensible air quality goals. The respondents' actions in granting Air State Facility Permits and Acid Rains Permits were not arbitrary or capricious. The record indicates that the additional particulates, whether measured in the immediate locale of Port Jefferson or within the greater area of Nassau and Suffolk,are almost not discernible. Having so concluded,the court is not unmindful or insensitive to the reality that any plant, no matter how designed to minimize adverse environmental consequences,is inherently distasteful to the general population in its immediate vicinity. In passing Article X of Public Services Law, the Legislature has recognized that reality and provided a mechanism for the siting of additional generators which is arguably inadequate for many of the more densely populated areas of the State. Article X of the Public Authorities Law only pertains to plants with generating capacities in excess of 80 megawatts and,by excluding plants of lesser generating capacity from the usual siting requirements and failing to provide a mechanism to insure adequate buffers between those plants and surrounding residences and/or local oversight or input,the intrusive nature ofthese"pocket plants"has not adequatelybeen considered. Those omissions are matters that are exclusively within the prerogative of the Legislature to address and are beyond the powers of this court to remediate in this proceeding. Given the possibility that the "band aid" procedure herein employed is capable of abuse, the urgency of legislative intervention before the next power emergency becomes apparent is manifest. This state is ill served by a haphazard, piecemeal approach which, if unchecked, may pose similar controversies in many other Long Island communities,perhaps of a more severe nature. A long range energy plan for Long Island(which of necessity must entail an explicit legislative direction as to the proper balance between the competing energy and environmental considerations)is essential and is an appropriate subject ofpolitical debate and should not be imposed by judicial fiat or administrative ukase. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit The amended petition alleges that the DEC improperly issued a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)because the public hearing was inadequately noticed. Similar to the Village of Poquott v. Cahill• • Index No. 7359-2002 Page 26 issue addressed above, the amended petition alleges that the respondent DEC, contrary to its anti- segmentation rules, failed to consider the cumulative effect of discharges from the proposed plant along with discharges from the existing facilities in the Port Jefferson locale. Notwithstanding the allegedly improper notice, the petitioner Village was present at the hearing and set forth detailed objections to the proposed project. The amended petition alleges that, in passing upon the permit application, the respondent NYS DEC failed to address any of the points raised by those who attended the hearing. The petitioners have failed to establish their claim of inadequacy of notice. More to the point, the Village attorney, Mrs. Kagel, Mr. Parrish and others aligned with the petitioners were present at the hearings held and have no basis for such a complaint. Implicit in the petitioners' complaint is the inference that, if more people had attended the hearing, the outcome would have been different- thereby implying that the outcome was not based on any public policy rationale or the scientific data contained in the record. Contrary to that allegation, the record includes what is titled"Responsiveness Summary"which, in essence, is an answer by the respondent DEC to all of the comments made and raised at the hearing by those participating or even those who commented by letter. Although a well reasoned, written decision may provide the best basis for intelligent judicial review,the court cannot conclude that the record fails to set forth the administrative agency's basis for the granting of all the permits in question. The form or manner in which the findings are rendered is not as important so long as the record is such that the rationale of the agency can be discerned and it permits intelligent challenge by a party aggrieved and adequate judicial review following the determination. SAPA§§302,307(1);(MatterofNew York WaterServiceCorporation v. Water Power & Control Commission of the State of New York 283 N.Y. 23, 30 (1940) (cited recently by the Appellate Division, Second Department,in Matter of Groves,290 A.D.2d 506,736 N.Y.S.2d 275 (Second Dept., 2002)); see, also,Matter ofBarry v. O'Connell, 303 N.Y. 46 (1951), Matter ofPerpente v.Moss.293 N.Y.325,329(1944).In this instance,the terms of the permit itself combined with the"Responsiveness Summary"and other aspects of this record provide an adequate basis from which intelligent challenge and thoughtful judicial review can be had. Specifically,the respondents considered the petitioners'complaints about inadequate PM2.5 standard(record,p. 640),the cumulative effects of all five sites, as well as the cumulative effect of the proposed project, and the existing facilities at the Port Jefferson locale(record,p. 644), and the effect of the project on the Port Jefferson Harbor Management Plan(record,p. 657-659). While the petitioners may strongly disagree with the conclusions reached,as well as the proofupon which said conclusions are based, they have been unable to establish that the administrative records and the conclusions reached were not based on substantial evidence.Once a reviewing court has established that the record was based on substantial evidence,judicial scrutiny must end. Acosta v. Wollett 55 N.Y.2d 761,447 N.Y.S.2d 241 (1981),Jones v.Hudacs.221 A.D.2d 531,633 N.Y.S.2d 827,Iv.app. den.,88 N.Y.2d 804,646 N.Y.S.2d 984(1994). Therefore,the petitioners have failed to sustain their burden of showing that the determination of the DEC was arbitrary or capricious or not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the fourth, fifth and sixth branches of the petition must be dismissed. 'Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 27 The Public Health Issues The court cannot ignore the claims interposed by the petitioners regarding the alleged adverse consequences to the public health of the residents of the Village of Poquott allegedly posed by this facility as currently operated. Indeed,the court has been subjected to an orchestrated campaign by opponents of the project who have forwarded prepared forms signed by residents of Poquott voicing their opposition to the project and stating their public health concerns. Since no effort has been made to serve such opposition on the other parties to the lawsuit, the contents of such letters are an impermissible attempt at ex pane communications and thus may not be considered by the court. Whether such ex parte communications have been solicited by any of the attorneys appearing herein is a matter to be determined by other public agencies upon complaint of an aggrieved person. Nonetheless, the bona fide public health concerns of citizens should be paramount in any contemplated action by a governmental agency. The petitioners' misuse of the public health issue is truly a red herring for several reasons. Putting aside the fact that the petitioners' failure to submit to the administrative agency proof in evidentiary form of demonstrated health problems directly related to the prior existing facility or credible proof of the potential adverse consequence posed by the increased particulants projected to be discharged by this project precludes judicial scrutiny,the court nonetheless will attempt to address the health isslie as raised by petitioners. At the onset,the court will state the obvious - that no public benefits project,technological advance, or disruption of the status quo can occur without some potential for degradation of the existing environment and, thus, poses some potential incremental danger to the health of some members of the public. These dangers probably are greatest to those in closest proximity to the undertaking in question. The question is always one of degree. That reality is at the heart of all SEQRA review,particularly with respect to the classification of activities into the various"types". Certainly the presence of any power generating facility is not a pleasant addition to one's neighborhood and is more likely to raise bona fide health concerns than other less intrusive invasions of one's tranquility. Thus,the types of concems voiced by the petitioners are to be expected and the Legislature would be well advised to provide a mechanism to allay or address these bona fide concerns. However,ifhealth considerations were trulyparamount in the petitioners'concerns,then greater efforts should have been made to bring such matter to the attention of the administrative agency in question. The petitioners failed to act responsibility in the instant matter in this regard. In the first instance, given the nature of this proceeding, the petitioners'proof of necessity had to deal with the potential health hazards posed by the existing facility. Petitioners' own allegation and proof assert that the existing facility (prior to the latest project) was already the dirtiest, most polluting source of adverse health particulates on Long Island and posed a severe health hazard to the residents of Poquott. Despite that bold statement, the record is barren of any efforts undertaken by the petitioners to submit credible proof to LIPA, DEC or their elected representatives demonstrating that the Port Jefferson facility threatens their safety and well-being Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 28 to such a degree that it should be closed,phased out or replaced by a less hazardous alternative. If the petitioners are to be given credence, one cannot ignore the undisputed fact that the preexisting facility poses a far greater threat to their well-being than the new,state of the art pocket plants. The petitioners' own expert states that the existing facility discharges about ten times the amount of potentially harmful pollutants than the new plant (figures which are disputed by the respondents). Yet,to date,the focus of the petitioners'efforts have been directed against the more environmentally benign component of the project which, according to petitioner's own experts, contributes a minuscule amount of harmful material. There is no indication that the petitioners have initiated any action in the nature of an abatement of nuisance of what they allege poses an imminent threat to their health and tranquility. In a similar vein, as to those who say that their health has already been severely adversely affected by the existing facility, their decision to remain in what is (at least to them) a toxic environment is unfathomable. Secondly,the court notes that the baseline for much of the analysis proffered by petitioners' medical experts was derived from data obtained from a "survey" in which the petitioner Kagel's minor daughter participated as an extra curricular school project. To equate"the study"submitted by the petitioners with a scientifically acceptable study conducted by a neutral person or persons with recognized credentials mocks the veryconcept of expert testimony and raises substantial doubts about the credibility of those who would rely on such data. Certainly,the respondents are justified in being dismissive of such "proof'. In particular, the actions of the various Village officials has been grossly irresponsible - a characterization the court does not lightly employ. Rather than heightening the legitimate fears and concerns of the residents about the risk to the health of their loved ones by relying on an ersatz survey, the Village, if truly concerned about the health implications ofa power generating facility in close proximity to its residents,could have undertaken (or prompted other agencies of government to undertake) a serious investigation of such environmental conditions and discharge levels in the environs of the facility by individuals of unquestioned repute and neutrality. If such a study revealed serious potential health problems stemming from the operation of the facility,then several possible avenues°are present to ameliorate such circumstance and would provide a basis for an intelligent public policy debate as to the most efficient way to do so. Lastly,with respect to health concerns raised herein but not presented to the respondents at the various hearings held,it is a fundamental principle of administrative law that this court may not consider any health issue which was not raised before the agency. Long Island Pine Barrens Soc., Inc. v. Planning Bd. Of Town of Brookhaven supra. As long as the respondents afforded the petitioners the opportunity to present any pertinent medical evidence they wished to place on the record,then the respondent agencies were well within their discretion to ascribe greater reliance on contrary proof submitted on the record or to reject such proof based on some articulated reasonable °Such potential avenues are present,administratively(revocation of any erroneously issued permit) legislatively(compelling the elimination of polluting generators)and judicially through an abatement of a nuisance. Village of Poquott v. Cahill Index No. 7359-2002 Page 29 basis. Larkins v. DeBuono. 257 A.D.2d 714, 682 N.Y.S.2d 732 (Third Dept., 1999); Zalmanov v. &kL 186 A.D.2d 919, 589 N.Y.S.2d 379 (Third Dept., 1992). The petitioners have raised many other bases to attack the determination of the respondents, none of which has any merit. The record now before the court fails to demonstrate that any of these remaining issues were not thoroughly addressed by the respective agencies or that any other factors exist which warrant the vacatur of any of the administrative approvals granted(see record,pp.638- 659). Therefore,all other relief sought by the petitioners is denied. The respondents shall be entitled to a judgment dismissing each and every branch of the amended petition insofar as it seeks relief pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. Insofar as the pleadings seek declaratory relief, declarations consonant with this opinion shall be submitted. Settle judgment with costs containing declarations and findings in accordance with this decision as well as dismissal of all requests for relief interposed pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. �-�- 'tZ-/-� J.S.C. Aanab Or1oM Corporaaon NWEWWSy�W Appendix D: Assembly Drawings for 30.5 m (100 ft) Tower e c`tue; ate Fi containe•l;.n this document is subject to the warning on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document. "`' AOC 15150 User Manual May 2001 Assembly_Details for 100 ft(30.5m) SSV Lattice Tower 117 TOIEIP H Joe' - 1 7 LESION Or A TLANTIC IALMIAWr LY TzTWS ROYaW I PNOYIOIhO TOYOt WTERIALS piY r VFKW of . aii IQ t»�L IORO DD!AD. NO.: CTI/IDp-I 02 \) � /OI DILL OF InlJal/L DQ AC. 1p.: OWIL0.F' I 83 W 84 WIER ORIENTATION OETERD/NEO BY OTHERS xrx • 85 MArLuffic R 0 H N 0z•-�o• VMr `off BASE SITEAO LNr coup. w.x NOTICE: Use of the material contained in this document is subject to the aarnmg on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document u�si;vL<nuI AOC 15/50 User Manual May 2001 • 12 r M.MI,Or Appendix F: Foundation Loads and Details ";e material contained in this document is subject to the J warning on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document. AOC 15150 User Manual May 2001 Foundation Drawing for the Standard Tower Configuration,EIA Normal Soil 127 D G �! a C TOWER AXIS DETAIL A B 30° SCALE 1 :8 TYP � p _ 120`TYP _ I TO TOWER A%L5—,\ \ C RB BOLTS � \\ ANCHOR BOLTS A OBOLT CIRCLE:H - ROHN ANCHOR BOLT SETTING TEMPLATE,SEE TOWER SPECS - 45W ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT ~ PUN VIEW BARS.12INCHES ON CENTER, ROUND LINE BO1H WAYS,TOP AND BOTTOM A E DUAL ALE B • • SCALE 1:8 E •e axne uws miwwE vrnm Atlantic tic OAsM Corporation • • • • • �YOM04!\- fMBBO.O MEM KNB OO MI MVWLLYVWf p�/�� 1pBUC8•I! A WMD8$('YSY51sAS C0AIRANY IOf M LI•LL ~ IA•O(10111pp�LYf6W ELEVATION VIEW pr 1111=420"' o&Out rouioucx OrAYwRs •1.NIC GIO. NIA IORBn11C4•{L lJIq.�OR M WA 102H /N i4OFiCE: Use of do-oat el om amed in this document is subject to the warning on page v and the disclaimer on page vi of this document. GkA�O12RU AOC 15150 User Manual May 2001 . �., I f�� g r uab i N� z6 .2 2-d 2,0. 2 V3� ray A6ivis ia,4 . Southold Town mg Department 530 m Road f}t.'n Southol ,N.Y. 11971 acsim le Tel# : (631)765-1938 Fax#: (631)765-3136 lll.l To: Fred Peritore Fax: 631-545-5248 From: Bruno Semon Date: 10/29/2003 Re: LIPA Windturbine/Osprey Dominion Pages: 2 CC: Office file ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • . red, you will find a copy of a memorandum ndence to our Town Attorney. We will require an ered before the Planning Board can start the process of this application. This application is scheduled for review at the next Planning Board work session on November 3, 2003 at 4:30pm, please try to attend. If you have any questions please give us a call. Thank You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 6 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SpFFO[,� BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. �� C P.O. Box 1179 Chairman C � Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 : Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO • Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS O Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L. DS MARTIN H.SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: October 28, 2003 To: Greg Yakaboski, Town Attorney From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer`)� �i� icz2 Re: Request for legal council on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard� r�/�0�/ iy. (Wind Turbine) New amended site plan application for a Wind Turbine at Os pre ys Dominion Vineyard 44075 Main Road , Peconic, NY � 2 SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 & 20.2 Zoned AC Status: New amended site plan application on hold. Hi Greg, Per Town Code section 100-254 (A) the Planning Board (P.B.) reviewed the amended site plan application and materials received on October 21, 2003. The P.B. held a work session on October 27, 2003 to review the amended site plan application. The P.B. needs clarification on whether it is legal for LIPA the site plan applicant to act as lead agency for purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)? The P.B. will not start the process on this application until we receive counseling on this matter. The file can be reviewed in the Planning Board Office. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, pb members 0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. P.O. Box 1179 Chairman Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 : Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGL9N0 y, • Telephone (631) 765-1938 WILLIAM J.CREMERS Fax(631) 765-3136 KENNETH L. D3 MARTIN H.SIDOR yi�tol ��Qt' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: October 28, 2003 To: Greg Yakaboski, Town Attorney From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer`) Re: Request for legal council on Osprey's Dominion Vineyard (Wind Turbine) New amended site plan application for a Wind Turbine at Osprey's Dominion Vineyard 44075 Main Road Peconic, NY SCTM# 1000-75.-1-20.1 & 20.2 Zoned AC Status: New amended site plan application on hold. Hi Greg, Per Town Code section 100-254 (A) the Planning Board (P.B.) reviewed the amended site plan application and materials received on October 21, 2003. The P.B. held a work session on October 271, 2003 to review the amended site plan application. The P.B. needs clarification on whether it is legal for LIPA the site plan applicant to act as lead agency for purpose of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)? The P.B. will not start the process on this application until we receive counseling on this matter. The file can be reviewed in the Planning Board Office. Thank you in advance. Cc: file, pb members KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 KAREN L.MINTZER PARIS ASSOCIATE 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-7775 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 Fax (212)715-8000 FAx(33-1)44 09 46 01 kminizer@kramerlevin.com October 21, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Bennett Orlowski Planning Board of the Town of Southold , Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Long Island Power Authority Application for Site Plan Approval for Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Orlowski: We are counsel to the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") in connection with the above-referenced application. At the suggestion of Linda Kowalski at the Zoning Board of Appeals, we enclose five additional copies of the environmental assessment ("EA"), with attached full environmental assessment form, analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the wind turbine proposed by LIPA. One EA was already provided with the complete application sent to you yesterday. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information regarding LIPA's application. Very truly yours,,j ,( Karen L. Mintzer Enclosures KL32297e111 Affiliate Offices Alliance Vices Milan "Rome London 'Bmssels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022-3852 RICHARD G.LELAND PARIS PARTNER 47,AVENUE HOCHE 75008 TEL (212)715-8087 TEL (33-1)44 09 46 00 FAx (212)715-7569 FAx (33-1)44 09 46 01 rleland@kramerlevin.com October 20, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS D E C E V E Mr. Bennett Orlowski D Planning Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 So:: old Town Southold,New York 11971-0959 --- '_`ard Re: Long Island Power Authority Application for Site Plan Approval for Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Orlowski: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above- referenced application for site plan approval for the proposed construction of a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Peconic. LIPA, through its agent Keyspan Electrical Services, LLC ("Keyspan"), has leased a portion of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard for this purpose. For your information, LIPA is also seeking a height variance and special exception use permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed project. Attached for Planning Board review are the following documents: (1) nine copies of the proposed site plan; (2) a site plan application; (3) a certification from LIPA indicating that Keyspan is authorized to act as its agent for purposes of the site plan application; and (4) an application fee of$300. As you know, LIPA is acting as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). LIPA's environmental consultant has prepared an environmental assessment ("EA") and an updated full environmental assessment form ("EAF") analyzing the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. As the Planning Board is a SEQRA involved agency, we enclose the EA and EAF for the Planning Board's review. We ask that the Planning Board provide any comments on the EA or EAF to me as soon as possible, so that LIPA may take those comments into consideration when making its determination of significance. -229 697.1 Affiliate Vices Alliance Vices Milan -Rome London*Brussels KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Mr. Bennett Orlowski October 20, 2003 Page 2 Please do not hesitate to contact me or my colleague, Karen Mintzer(212) 715-7775, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, Richard G. Leland Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon(w/o encl.) K 22966971 r KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022-3852 RICKARD G.LELAND PAw8 PARTNER 47,AVENUE H 0 TEL, (212)715-8087 TEL (33.1)44 0 9 46 00 FAx (212)715-7569 FAX(33-1)44 09 46 01 rleland@kramerlevin.com October 20, 2003 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS D E 2 pp Mr. Bennett Orlowski l� U D Planning Board of the Town of Southold OCT 2 3 2003 Town Hall 53095 State Road 25 Soubw Torte Southold,New York 11971-0959 PIU10i0 Soard Re: Long Island Power Authority Application for Site Plan Approval for Wind Turbine Dear Mr. Orlowski: We represent the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA") in connection with the above- referenced application for site plan approval for the proposed construction of a wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard property in Peconic. LIPA,through its agent Keyspan Electrical Services, LLC ("Keyspan'n,has leased a portion of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyard for this purpose. For your information, LIPA is also seeking a height variance and special exception use permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed project. Attached for Planning Board review are the following documents: (1)nine copies of the proposed site plan; (2) a site plan application; (3) a certification from LIPA indicating that Keyspan is authorized to act as its agent for purposes of the site plan application; and(4) an application fee of$300. As you know, LIPA is acting as lead agency for purposes of compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"). LIPA's environmental consultant has prepared an environmental assessment("EA") and an updated full environmental assessment form ("EAF") analyzing the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. As the Planning Board is a SEQRA involved agency, we enclose the EA and EAF for the Planning Board's review. We ask that the Planning Board provide any comments on the EA or EAF to me as soon as possible, so that LIPA may take those comments into consideration when making its determination of significance. raa:229ees71 Affiliate O9ices Alliance Offices Milan•Rome London•Brussels ` KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS& FRANKEL LLP Mr. Bennett Orlowski October 20, 2003 Page 2 Please do not hesitate to contact me or my colleague,Karen Mintzer(212) 715-7775,if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Very truly yours, Z'-tz1-�4 66�6 Richard G. Leland Enclosures cc: Mr. Bruno Semon(w/o encl.) KL1.22%0/.1 SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Taws NW 53095 M1LM Rwd Sou6iWd,NT 11971.0959 Mme(631)766-1938 Faa(631)765-3136 Date: October 14,2003 To: Southold Planning Board From: Neboysba R Brashich,Chairman �- Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project —))) As you are aware, SR 25 is a New York State Scenic Bywa so designated by New York State Legislation in 2002. As such, the viewshed along this road must be protected given the scenic, historic and cultural importance of the old"King's Highway" The proposed project is to be located within the viewshed of SR 25, The Commission is concerned that the design and,particularly the placement,of such a turbine would have a lasting negative effect on the Byway. During its review,the Planning Board should ensure that the viewshed be as minimally impacted as possible. pECE VE � D OCT 1 5 �00, Southold Town Plannin Board i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS o�$pFF0j/r • ,Z Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer h Z P.O. Box 1179 George Horning O .Le Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva y�► O` ZBA Fax(631)765-9064 Vincent Orlando �a Telephone(631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INCOMPLETE NOTICE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY Application No. sf3d CTM 7S-I-�o, i 4atlAcreage: c�Zone:�C Owner: V-c rEu � Arrul Applicant:T� /leuJnor + iPA Initial Applicatlon'hf 02rla n e.r /o o - a A In reviewing the above-referenced application with site sketch dated it is determined that other applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals will be necessary with respect to the following provisions of the Zoning Code for this property, located in the A -G Zone District. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate our office staff representative assigned to your file at (631) 765- 1809. Zonina Code Provisions(seven sets of applications, below): (Section 100-31B(6): Special Exception application (yr Section 100-31(4) and 100-32, Bulk Area Schedule: additional minimum land area for second use as a public utility tower/use. Please clarify 80,000 sq.ft. of land for public utility usage,as well as ,�jG•yv 2 acres designated for winery and 10 acres for vineyard, on a map,with filing of variance application, if the entire property is less than 14 acres in size. f�pc toga- ( L/'Copies of lease or similar agreement, with description of land area for use by public utility. f-°f- fiT Site maps with elevation and size details related to tower base, supports,antennas. etco1zZ ( v) When available, SEQRA coordination Letter or Notice by Lead Agency(to Involved Agencies with Long Environmental Assessment Form with updated information). p ( ✓j Other: A;-W, ' io Dated: October 7, 2003 / By: /1 QLi/QX�LK[ Assigned Reviewer for ZBA APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS For Office.Use Only Fee:$ Flied By: Date Assigned/Assignment No.. Offce Notes: Parcel Location: HouseNo.44o7sStreet tfain Rn„t Hamlet po na 20. 1 . SCTM 1000 Section 75 Block 1-Lot(s) 20 . 2 Lot.Size. 50 acrZone District A/C I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: Applicant/Owner(s): Frederick Koehler , President . Ocprey ' s Dominion Vineyards , Ltd . ]Mailing Address: 44075 Main Road Peconic New York f Telephone: 631-765-6188 NOTE: If applies,,,is,,ot the owner,stole if applicant is owner's attorney,sgent,architect,builder,contract vendee,eta- AulhorizedRepresenlative; Frederick, Peritor.e .(Keyspan) as agent,_ for The Long Island Power Authority. Lessee Address: Keyspan, 175 E . Old Country Road , Hicksville ,, NY 11801 Telepbone: (516) 545-5720 Please specify who you wish correspondence tb be mailed to, from the above listed-namjes: 0 Applicant/Owner(s) W Authorized Representative ❑ Other: Please coppyy counsel : Richard G. Leland , Kramer Levin, 919 Third Ave. ,NYCIO02_ W1IEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED . FOR: ❑Buliding Perinit 0 Certificate of Occupancy ❑Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ❑ Change of Use ❑Perinit for As-Built Construction O Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section,Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article III Section 100- 32 Subsection (Height. Variance) Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: ❑ A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zouing Map. ❑A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 2110-A. ❑Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section 0 Reversal or Other A prior appeal O has Ckhas not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No, _Year Page 2 0 - Appeal Application Part A: AREA VARIANCE REASONS (attach extra sheet as needed): (1) An undesirable change will not be produced In the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties,if grpnted, because: Wind turbine is compatible with existing agricultural Land Use. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because: Height is needed for wind capture. (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: It is closely tailored to meet requirements of successful operation of wind turbin- (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the,physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The Use is compatLJB1e with surrounding agricultural Land Uses. (5) Has the variance been self-created? (X ') Yes, or ( J No. If not, Is the construction existing, as built? ( ) Yes, or. ( ) No. (d) Additional information about the surrounding topography and building areas that relate to the difficulty in meeting the code requirements: (attach extra sheet as needed) This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and of the some flme preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ( ) Check this box and complete PART B, Questions on next page to apply USE VARIANCE STANDARDS. (Please consult your attorney.) Othe ` lse plegse roc ed fo'the slanature an notary area below. Sign a of Appellant or Authorized Agent Sworn to be lore a this (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) p?/ day a ,0TZ/ . .� .., 200_3 Raters L. .Mintzer, Esq. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Not Public) Counsel to 'Long Island Power Authority ZBA App 9/30/02 UUYASURISYolk 1416 ft 2i(1 9, STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) I, Edward Grilli, Chief of Staff of the Long Island Power Authority("LIPA"),hereby authorize Keyspan to act as LIPA's agent and handle all necessary work involved in LIPA's applications for(a) site plan approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board, and (b) a special exception use permit and height variance from the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. WARD GRILLI Sworn to before me this A:rW day of October, 2003 Notary PkXric R013ERT J.CONROY Notary Public, Stale of New York No.01006636213 Qualified in Nassau County Qtaatnlsslon Expires march,6 h*, W 22MBI 1 TOWN OF' SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK SPPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No.�_J Date Filed: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: I (We) , The Long Island Power Authority of. 333 ,Earle Av1n ton Boulevard es ence, ouse No. and Street) Suite 403 , Uniondale, NY 11553 (516) 222-7700 (Hamiet,, .State, Lip Gode, Telephone Number) -' hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III SECTION 100-31 SUBSECTION (s) (6) for the below-described property for the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): Proposed Public Utility Structure — Wind Turb LIPA is the lessee of the site upon which the wind turbine will be' constructed and has: been authorized by the property owner to make . this application. A. Statement of Ownership and Interest. 08 re 'e Do inion, Vine rd� Ltd. is(are) the Owners) of property . nown .an re erre .to.'as. ouse o: , Street, Hamlet) i enti a on t u o ounty ax ap5 as str�c ' Lot(s).:20. 1 &20. 2, which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filedn 9 , ock °gyp asi— -- ° Filed Map o, ' and has ven approve . y t e out o own ann ng and on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The, above-described property. was acquired by the owner on B. ,The applicant alleges, that the.approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the -following reasons: The proposed wind turbine structure .is physically compatible . and consistent .with the agricultural character ,of the 'property. and, surrounding properties . The" wind turbine will Provide a benefit to the"c demonstrate the feasibility of ommunity in that it: vill ,green sources^ of electricity and provide Power to the existing grid . C. The property whit is' the subject of this application is zoned and o��gUFFO(�-c VALERIE SCOPAZ WeRe Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN PLANNER o �'! P.O. Box 1179 y Southold, New York 11971 O Fax(516) 766-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1935 OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: August 26, 2003 To: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton Southold Town Board /�� From: Valerie Scopaz, AICP, Town Planner J Re: LIPA Wind Turbine Project I see no problem with the Long Island Power Authority establishing itself as lead agency in the SEQRA process for the above project. However, the proposed project (44075 Main Road) is located on SR 25,which is a New York State Scenic Byway, designated by New York State Legislation. Item#14 on the EAF should make reference to this fact. Further, the design and locating of this turbine should be reviewed to insure that the viewshed be minimally impacted by this project. cc: Neboysha Brashich, Transportation Commission FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: August 26, 2003 AMENDED: September 16, 2003 TO: Keyspan A/C Osprey Dominion 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801 Please take notice that your application dated August 22, 2003 For permit for construction of a wind turbine on an existing winery property as applied for at Location of property: 44075 Main Road, Peconic, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 75 Block 1 Lot 20.1 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed wind turbine, on this conforming 4.46 acre parcel in the Agricultural Conservation District requires a special exception approval from The Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, as per Section 111, Section 100-31, B (6). This permit was amended on September 16, 2003, when it was determined that the proiect did not need a Notice of Disapproval and, instead, a special exception. Au orized Signature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: ZBA, File ,r T/< S�F..PK C°AtNcc� fOWJ&jL f StG $ 7Z Southold To mg Department 5309WAain Road ��+ Southold,N.Y. 11971 facsimile Tel# : (631)765-1938 m� Fax# :(631)765-3136 llu Ine NNW To: Karen Mintzer Fax: 212-715-8291 From: Bruno Semon Date: 9/16/2003 Re: LIPA WindTurbine Pages: CC: Office file ❑ Urgent ❑For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle .,,Karen, to the UPA wind turbine attached m a memo thatweM to Mr.Horton on 6/26/03. o Semon i or Site Plan Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD May 5, 2003 4:30 pm SITE PLANS Osprey Dominion/ Long Island Power Authority 44075 Main Road / Peconic,N.Y. SCTM: 1000-75-1-20.1 &20.2 Zone: AC Representation: Mr. Mark Dougherty RE: 1)New Preliminary Site Plan for a Wind Turbine Project. Cornell, Cliff 41250 County Road 48 Peconic, N.Y. SCTM: 1000-59-10-03 Zone: LB Representation: Mr. Comell RE: 1)New Preliminary Site Plan for a 3900 sqft. Contractors Building. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES., SET OFF APPLICATIONS Mr. Smith&Mr. Schrader 1160 & 1200 Mill Road Mattituck SCTM# 1000-107-1-2.1, 2.2 &2.3 Zones: R-80 Representation: Owners RE: 1) Requesting a lot line change to eliminate a lot. Will require modifications to c/r's with approval from the Planning Board(refer to # 6 in c/r's) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Giannaris (Hellenic Hotel &Resturant) 5145 Main Road, East Marion NY SCTM# 1000-35-2-14 & 15.1 RE: 1) Letter for comments or suggestions from Lydia Tortora of the ZBA. VL Melhado, Warren (Construct an amateur radio tower 54' feet in height) 165 Wood Lane, Southold NY SCTM# 1000-86-6-1 & 2.1 RE: 1) Letter for comments or suggestions from Lydia Tortora of the ZBA. bs 5/5/03 NYSRPS ASSESSMENT INQUIRY DATE 05/02/2003 473881 SOUTHOLD • SCHOOL SOUTHOLD SCHOOL ROLL SEC TAXABLE PRCLS 129 LAND RIGHTS TOTAL RES SITE 75--1-20.2 TOTAL COM SITE 44075 MAIN RD ACCT NO 10 OWNER & MAILING INFO === I =MISC 1 ________ ______ ASSESSMENT DATA OSPREY DOMINION CO IRS-SS I **CURRENT** RES PERCENT PO BOX 275 1 1 ILAND 51800 **TAXABLE** PECONIC NY 11958 1 BANK ITOTAL 9,800 COUNTY 4,600 **PRIOR** TOWN 4,600 1 ILAND 51800 SCHOOL 4,600 1 ITOTAL 51800 ==DIMENSIONS === 1 =====_= SALES INFORMATION ACRES 46 .36 IBOOK 11618 SALE DATE 00/00/00 ] PAGE 440 PR OWNER __=====TOTAL EXEMPTIONS 1 _____________ 1 == TOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3 CODE AMOUNT PCT INIT TERM VLG HC OWN CODE UNITS PCT TYPE VALUE 41720 51200 98 IFD028 IWW020 ISW011 I F1=NEXT PARCEL F3=NEXT EXEMPT/SPEC F4=PREV EXEMPT/SPEC 75 . 10- 03-050 F6=GO TO INVENTORY F9=GO TO XREF F10=GO TO MENU YSRPS ASSESSMENT INQUIRY DATE 05/02/2003 473889 SOUTHOLD SCHOOL SOUTHOLD SCHOOL ROLL SEC TAXABLE ORCLS 152 VINEYARD TOTAL RES SITE 75--1-20.1 TOTAL COM SITE 44075 MAIN RD ACCT NO 10 = OWNER & MAILING INFO === I =MISC 1 ======== ====== ASSESSMENT DATA OSPREY DOMINION CO IRS-SS I **CURRENT** RES PERCENT PO BOX 275 1 1 ILAND 2,100 **TAXABLE** PECONIC NY 11958 1 BANK ITOTAL 121300 COUNTY 111900 **PRIOR** TOWN 111900 1 ILAND 21100 SCHOOL 111900 1 ITOTAL 121300 ==DIMENSIONS === 1 =====_= SALES INFORMATION ACRES 4 . 46 IBOOK 11618 SALE DATE 00/00/00 IPAGE 440 PR OWNER =======TOTAL EXEMPTIONS 1 _____________ 1 == TOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3 CODE AMOUNT PCT INIT TERM VLG HC OWN CODE UNITS PCT TYPE VALUE 41720 400 99 IFD028 IWWO20 ISW011 I F1=NEXT PARCEL F3=NEXT EXEMPT/SPEC F4=PREV EXEMPT/SPEC 75 . 10- 03-050 F6=GO TO INVENTORY F9=GO TO XREF F10=GO TO MENU REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE mo Date: 30 /0 3 Name: rletrb slzi� - Pc�- P /-70/z�6 \ Telephone: 1\� � J � � — s �, 0 Malling Address: j -7S- dr_ 01- D COv,V77IeY 5�091 D 0 PS SCTM# of site you are inquiring about: Query: (Please be specific about the information you need. Provide supporting documentation - surveys, maps, sketches - where possible.) � LT Jrl04J Reg GJr� � ��e �.✓� �2eJ�G� P(eerf11 urcr(VlfeA) V,� a Ls- y,g , � . For Office Use Only: Routed to: ft.L LIPA 333UnIondrle OlelnNY Suite 403 V ��l refire- 11 1on91arendP w rAU oft / [ 1 1 Mark Dougherty �/l 69e �-a /u_V�. CJ,�� Clean Energy Project Manager Y / (516) -7510 9137 www.lipowec 222 or9 Fax(516)222-9137 mdougherty@lipower.org Cell Phone(516)220-6439 Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Environmental Assessment of One Site Located in the Town of Southold ID n September, 2002 Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority Prepared by: Allee King Rosen &Fleming LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Besides the wind turbine/tower ensemble, the wind turbine area would contain a controls box and transformer. Energy produced by the wind turbine would be transmitted via underground wiring to a nearby 3-phase distribution line and into the LIPA power grid. In selecting the sites, LIPA worked with the Long Island chapter of the New York State Farm Bureau (FB)to identify suitable sites and interested landowners for this demonstration program. The FB sent letters to its members to solicit interest in the program. Forty farmers expressed interest in locating a wind turbine on their property. The sites selected for this demonstration project were selected from these forty fanners properties. As part of this project, LIPA will enter into a 20-year lease with each of the landowners for the approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land needed to site the proposed wind turbine facility, for an easement for the underground wiring from the wind turbine facility to a nearby distribution line, and for access to the site. LIPA will site, construct, and operate the proposed facility, and will be responsible for maintaining the proposed facilities throughout the 20-year lease period. LIPA will reimburse the landowner for any increase in tax and/or insurance resulting from the proposed facility, and will provide the landowner with an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kwh of the energy output from the proposed facility on the property. All wind turbines at the sites selected for this demonstration program are expected to operational by the end of 2002. B. ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Environmental Assessment(EA)evaluates potential environmental impacts of the proposed project (i.e., the siting, construction, and operation) in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR), 6 NYCRR Part 617. This EA is organized as follows: Chapter 1 is the Project Description, which contains an overview of the project, its purpose and need, site selection criteria,project benefits,and overview of the proposed facility. Chapter 2 is the Environmental Impact Assessment, which provides a discussion of potential environmental impacts for the proposed site by specific environmental analysis discipline (i.e., land use and zoning, community facilities, cultural resources, air quality,noise, etc.). Attachment A is a detailed discussion of coastal zone management issues. Attachment B is an avian report detailing potential impacts of the proposed project on birds. Attachment C is a detailed archaeological report regarding the site of the proposed project. C. PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed wind turbine facility will be part of a demonstration project which is part of LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative. This 5-year, $170 million program includes funding for renewable energy programs, energy efficiency programs, peak management programs, and research and development. Renewable energy is defined as energy from resources that are not depletable or are naturally replenished when used at sustainable levels. Renewable energy sources generally refers to hydropower, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, ocean, and landfill gas. Use of renewable energy provides a number of benefits including: 1-1 LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ONE SITE LOCATED IN THE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Submitted to: Long Island Power Authority Submitted by: Allee King Rosen &Fleming, Inc. September, 2002 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Methodology................................................................................................................2-12 ExistingConditions.....................................................................................................2-12 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project...................................................................2-14 D. Visual Resources.............................................................................................................2-15 Methodology....................................................................................................................2-15 ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................2-15 ProjectSite...................................................................................................................2-15 StudyArea...................................................................................................................2-15 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project.......................................................................2-15 SiteConditions ............................................................................................................2-15 E.Natural Resources............................................................................................................2-16 Methodology....................................................................................................................2-16 ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................2-16 SiteConditions............................................................................................................2-16 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project.......................................................................2-17 F. Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................2-18 Methodology....................................................................................................................2-18 ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................2-18 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project.......................................................................2-18 G.Waterfront Revitalization................................................................................................2-19 Methodology....................................................................................................................2-19 PolicyAnalysis................................................................................................................2-19 Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program..........................................2-19 H. Infrastructure...................................................................................................................2-21 Methodology....................................................................................................................2-21 ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................2-21 Water Supply 2-21 SanitarySewage ..........................................................................................................2-21 SolidWaste..................................................................................................................2-21 . Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project.......................................................................2-22 WaterSupply...............................................................................................................2-22 SanitarySewage..........................................................................................................2-22 SolidWaste........................................................................................................:.........2-22 it Table of Contents 1: Project Description...............................................................................................................1-1 A. Overview........................................................................................................................1-1 B. Organization of the Environmental Assessment............................................................1-2 C. Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................1-2 D. Site Selection..................................................................................................................1-3 E. Project Benefits..............................................................................................................1-6 F. Public Outreach..............................................................................................................1-6 2: Peconic Site............................................................................................................................2-1 A.Introduction........................................................................................................................2-1 ProjectDescription.............................................................................................................2-1 SiteLocation.......................................................................................................................2-1 Agency Actions, Permits, and Approvals...........................................................................2-1 B. Land Use,Zoning, and Community Facilities...................................................................2-1 Methodology.......................................................................................................................2-1 ExistingConditions............................................................................................................2-2 LandUse........................................................................................................................2-2 Zoning............................................................................................................................2-2 CommunityFacilities.....................................................................................................2-3 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project..........................................................................2-4 LandUse........................................................................................................................2-4 Zoning............................................................................................................................2-4 CommunityFacilities...................................................................................................2-10 C.Historic and Archaeological Resources...........................................................................2-11 Historic Resources............................................................................................................2-11 Methodology................................................................................................................2-11 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................2-11 ArchaeologicalResources................................................................................................2-12 i LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project M.Enviromnental Justice.....................................................................................................2-35 N. Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................................2-35 Attachment A Coastal Zone Management Attachment B Avian Report Attachment C Archaeological Resources iv t LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Besides the wind turbine/tower ensemble, the wind turbine area would contain a controls box and transformer. Energy produced by the wind turbine would be transmitted via underground wiring to a nearby 3-phase distribution line and into the LIPA power grid. In selecting the sites, LIPA worked with the Long Island chapter of the New York State Farm Bureau(FB)to identify suitable sites and interested landowners for this demonstration program. The FB sent letters to its members to solicit interest in the program. Forty farmers expressed interest in locating a wind turbine on their property. The sites selected for this demonstration project were selected from these forty farmers properties. As part of this project, LIPA will enter into a 20-year lease with each of the landowners for the approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land needed to site the proposed wind turbine facility, for an easement for the underground wiring from the wind turbine facility to a nearby distribution line, and for access to the site. LIPA will site, construct, and operate the proposed facility, and will be responsible for maintaining the proposed facilities throughout the 20-year lease period. LIPA will reimburse the landowner for any increase in tax and/or insurance resulting from the proposed facility, and will provide the landowner with an annual energy credit equal to 25,000 kwh of the energy output from the proposed facility on the property. All wind turbines at the sites selected for this demonstration program are expected to operational by the end of 2002. B. ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Environmental Assessment(EA)evaluates potential environmental impacts of the proposed project (i.e., the siting, construction, and operation) in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQR), 6 NYCRR Part 617. This EA is organized as follows: Chapter 1 is the Project Description, which contains an overview of the project, its purpose and need, site selection criteria,project benefits, and overview of the proposed facility. Chapter 2 is the Environmental Impact Assessment, which provides a discussion of potential environmental impacts for the proposed site by specific environmental analysis discipline (i.e., land use and zoning, community facilities, cultural resources, air quality,noise, etc.). Attachment A is a detailed discussion of coastal zone management issues. Attachment B is an avian report detailing potential impacts of the proposed project on birds. Attachment C is a detailed archaeological report regarding the site of the proposed project. C. PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed wind turbine facility will be part of a demonstration project which is part of LIPA's Clean Energy Initiative. This 5-year, $170 million program includes funding for renewable energy programs, energy efficiency programs, peak management programs, and _ research and development. Renewable energy is defined as energy from resources that are not depletable or are naturally replenished when used at sustainable levels. Renewable energy sources generally refers to hydropower, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, ocean, and landfill gas. Use of renewable energy provides a number of benefits including: 1-2 List of Figures Following Page 1-1 Illustration of Wind Turbine.................................................................................1-2 1-2 Power Output of Facility as a Function of Windspeed.........................................1-4 1-3 Regional Site Locations........................................................................................2-2 2-1 Project Site Location.............................................................................................2-2 2-2 Peconic Site Location...........................................................................................2-2 2-3 Peconic Existing Land Use.............................................:.....................................2-2 2-4 Peconic Zoning Use Districts ...............................................................................2-2 2-5 Peconic Community Facilities..............................................................................2-4 2-6a Peconic (North View).........................................................................................2-16 2-6b Peconic (Northeast View)...................................................................................2-16 2-7 Peconic Census Tract and Block Group.............................................................2-36 vi List of Tables 1-1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Initial Four(4) Sites Selected.....................1-1 1-2 IPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program 45 Sites and Their Initial Ratings..................1-5 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Eight(8) Sites Considered..........................1-6 2-1 Identified Precontact Period State Historic Preservation Office Sites..............................2-13 2-2 Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels .....................................................2-24 2-3 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels..........................................................2-24 2-4 FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria .............................................................................................2-26 2-5 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect ................................................................2-27 Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety 2-6 Existing Noise Levels Adjacent to the Peconic Wind Turbine Site..................................2-28 2-7 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment...........................................2-33 2-8 Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings..................................................................2-34 2-9 Peconic Population and Economic Characteristics...........................................................2-36 v Table of Contents Energy..........................................................................................................................2-22 I. Traffic................................................................................................................................2-22 J. Air Quality.........................._.............................................................................................2-22 K.Noise................................................................................................................................2-23 Methodology.....................................................................................................................2-23 NoiseFundamentals .........................................................................................................2-23 "A"-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)..............................................................................2-23 Community Response to Changes in Noise Levels......................................................2-23 Noise Descriptors Used in Impact Assessment............................................................2-24 NoiseStandards and Criteria............................................................................................2-25 SoutholdNoise Code....................................................................................................2-25 New York State Department of Transportation...........................................................2-25 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.....................................2-26 NoiseControl Act of 1972...........................................................................................2-26 ImpactCriteria..................................................................................................................2-26 Noise Prediction Methodology.........................................................................................2-27 ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................2-27 Selection of Noise Receptor Locations........................................................................2-27 NoiseMonitoring.........................................................................................................2-28 NoBuild Conditions.........................................................................................................2-28 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project........................................................................2-28 L. Construction.....................................................................................................................2-29 Methodology.....................................................................................................................2-29 Preconstruction Site Preparation..................................................................................2-29 Unit Assembly and Site Finish.....................................................................................2-30 UtilityConnections......................................................................................................2-30 Potential Impacts and Control Methods...........................................................................2-30 Traffic...........................................................................................................................2-30 HazardousMaterials.....................................................................................................2-31 AirQuality...................................................................................................................2-31 Noiseand Vibration.....................................................................................................2-32 ErosionControl............................................................................................................2-34 iii pia a ,u /ro? y�� .oa'w"Y.` -5�' � 2 t iTi.��. srx rX-• t Wind Turbine LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 1-1 L Calculated Power Curve 80 70 Y 60 0 50 0 40 _60 Hz 30 0 o' 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Speed (m/s) Power Output of Facility as a Function of Windspeed LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 1-2 Chapter 1: Project Description • Increased energy diversity and security; • Reduction in air emissions; • Greenhouse gas reduction; • Economic development opportunities; and • Onsite power generation. Currently within New York State, renewable energy sources account for only a very small part of the energy supply—less than 11 percent. Hydroelectricity accounts for approximately 92 percent of New York State's renewable energy supply, and wind accounts for approximately 1 percent of the New York State's renewable energy supply. In light of Governor Pataki's Executive Order No. 111, "Green and Clean" State Buildings and Vehicles, which mandates that State agencies such as LIPA increase their procurement of energy generated from technologies such as wind and solar thermal power, it is expected that the State's renewable energy sources will be significantly increased. The proposed wind turbine facility would demonstrate the feasibility of use of this type of renewable energy source for power generation on Long Island. This application of individual units at discrete farm locations would also demonstrate the applicability of distributed energy sources. hi addition, it would expand the use of green (non-polluting) sources of electricity on Long Island. D. SITE SELECTION The five (5) sites in Suffolk County on Long Island that were selected for the proposed wind turbine facilities were the result of a site selection process that LIPA initiated in the Fall of 2001 (see Figure 1-3). Early in the planning process, because the wind turbines require unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds, LIPA determined that farm property would be the best type of property upon which to site the wind turbine facilities. The bulk of Long Island farmland is located on the East End of Long Island in Suffolk County. The land in this area can generally be characterized as flat and windy terrain and, therefore, presents favorable conditions for the operation of wind turbines. LIPA then contacted the FB for assistance in identifying farmers that would be interested in having LIPA construct wind turbines on their property. During December 2001, LIPA and FB sent a joint letter to bureau members requesting that those members interested in having their farms considered as potential wind turbine sites submit an application to LIPA by January 21, 2002. LIPA received applications from FB members identifying 45 potential sites on 40 farms. LIPA then visited each of the proposed sites and determined whether each site was feasible for the development of a wind turbine facility based on whether the sites: • Were agricultural lots in agricultural use; • Had unobstructed exposure to prevailing winds; • Were located on farms that were at least 2 acres in size; • Were a minimum of 600 feet from the nearest residence; • Had access to LIPA's power grid(i.e., no third-party easements required for connecting,the wind turbine to a 3-phase distribution line of the existing LIPA grid); and 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project • Were located on farms with intact and unfettered development rights. Based on these criteria,LIPA developed a grade for each proposed farm site: C(not feasible),B- (somewhat feasible), B (feasible), B+(good potential), and A (highest potential). Table 1-2 lists the 45 sites and their initial gradings. (Note: Five of the sites are multiple sites owned by the same entity,which were given the same number,but a suffix was added.) Of the 45 sites considered, 9 sites were grade B+ or A (i.e., 4 sites were graded B+ and 5 sites received an A grade). One of the sites that received an A grade, Shade Trees Nursery located in Jamesport, was removed from consideration by the farm owner. Table 1-3 lists the 8 sites that were considered in the next step in the site selection process. As part of the next step in the site selection process, a team of environmental specialists visited each of the sites, and discussions were initiated with officials in each of the communities where the potential wind turbine sites were located.These field visits and discussion were performed to determine the following: • Sites for the proposed facilities did not have any significant environmental constraints (i.e., wetlands or sensitive ecology issues, endangered or threaten species, major contamination issues,visual quality concerns,on-site historic or archeological concerns,etc.); • Sites are geographically dispersed; and • Sites are selected, where feasible, in areas where there is support anticipated from the local community. Of the eight sites listed in Table 1-3, two are located on the same farm—the Zeh Brothers farm in Calverton. For this demonstration project, LIPA determined that only one site per farm would be used, and the site north of Route 25 was selected because it was more accessible. In addition, the Jim Stakey Greenhouse site in Aquebogue was eliminated because of its proximity to nearby residences. The Manorville site was eliminated at the request of the property owner. Based on the selection process, LIPA decided to proceed with the four remaining sites in the Town of Riverhead and then in September of 2002 decided to pursue development of the Peconic site as the fifth site. 1-4 Area of Detail LI bS a P� ti o ' P nullow ivorthvillCID ` 1 O ` i I' Ave. Edwards Edwards Ave. Calverton 'I NtsFT25 _ cv5 I o --- j i F io � - -- -_ - -- !.�:•-•-�• - ay \�g61 ° ,ram _- - - d�+Pte55� l - - .-. P _-. o - --- t \S�a- o!3 — oc' t� Alit —. 'Manorville i Miles L3 1 Mile Study Area o : z a a Street Network o Project Site Location Regional Site Locations — Town Boundary Figure 1 -3 Chapter 1:Project Description Table 1-2 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program 45 Sites and Their Initial Ratings No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address Locatio/Town Rating 1 Frederick W.Koehler Os re s Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road-Peconic Peconic B+ 2 Richard Girards Flora Nurseries,Inc. 6900 Wickham Avenue Mattiluck B. 3_ ChnSto her Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 or 208 Sound Avenue Northville B+ 4 John Grodski The Long Island Perennial Farm 159 Reeves Avenue Riverhead C 5 Harry Hanley Eberhard&Hanley 198 Head of Neck Road Manorville A 6 Richard&Catherine Rin huff R.E.Rin hoff Farms CR 51 /CR 111 Eastport C 7 Thaddaeus Hill TImothy Hill Chiidren's Ranch 298 Middle Road Riverhead B 8 Bradford T.Reeve 891 Main Road Aguebogue B 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel B+ 10 Thomas P.McGunn' le McGunni le Farms 30255 County Road 48 Peconic C 11 Robert R.Samolewski 7800 ANahs Lane Cutchogue C 12 Randy Scott Shur Soundview Nursery/Randy Nursery/Randy Scotts 4050 Soundview Avenue Mattituck C 13 Walter&Ellen Godzieba 189 Bathes Road Moriches B 14 Patricia Pucifiese Pu liess Vineyards Bride Lane Cutchogue B 15 Alfred M.Popp Whispering Meadows Farm 524 Tuthills Lane AqueboQue C 16 None Provided Northeast Nurseries County Road 48.P.O.Box 1158 Cuteh ue B- 17 Joseph R.Agoglia Justin Purchasing Corp. 4080 Sound Avenue Riverhead C 18 Reginald&Connie Farr The Farm 156 Youngs Avenue Calerton C 19 James J.Hoffman 39 Middle Island Ya hank Road Middle Island C 20 Phil&Mary Barbato Bio hilia Organic Farm 211 Manor Lane James rt Riverhead C 21a John Verderber VerDerBers Landscape Nursery 369 Main Road A ueD ue B- 21 b John Verderber VerDerBers Landscape Nursery Peconic Bay Blvd. James port C 21c John Verderber VerDerBers Landscape Nursery Sunrise Highway Southampton B- 22 William&Marianne Savmo Salt River Farm,Inc. 363 Railroad Avenue Center Moriches B 23 June Croon The Plante e,Inc. Elijah Lane Mattituck B- 24 Reynold F.Blum Main Road Southold B 25 Mark Zaweski MKZ Farms 506 Church Lane James port B 26 John C.Filasky Flower Barn/IGHL Greenhouses 1 Montauk Highway Moriches B- 27 Kurt Van deWetering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound Avenue Bailin Hollow A 28 Russell Weiss Kurt Weiss Greenhouses,Inc. w/s Chapman Blvd.,s/o Sunrise Hwy. East Moriches C 29 Harry S.Ludlow Fairview Farm c/o Mecox Rd.&Horsemill Lane Brid eham on C -.- 30a Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 1st of 3 sites/Herdcks Lane Jamesport A 30b Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 2nd of 3 skes/Herricks Lane James port C 30c Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 3rd of 3 sites/Hertieks Lane Jamesport C 30d Louis Caracciolo Shade Trees Nursery 1 site/Mill Lane Mattituck C 31 Erin Wells Conklin Breeze Hill Farm 340 Scuttle Hole Road Bridgehampton S Fuchsia Garden Design 32 James J.Stakey Jim Stakey Greenhouses 324 West Lane P.O.Box 950 A ue ue B+ 33a Albert J.Kru ski,Jr. Kru ski Farms Youngs Avenue Southold B 33b Albert J.Kru ski,Jr. Kru ski Farms 2790 Skunks Lane Cutch ue S- 34 HenrySilverman 4654 Sound Avenue Riverhead B- 35 Kathryn Kresci Pindar Vineyards LLC/Cabernet LLC 7045 Oregon Road Mattituck C --- 36 William P.Stubelek Ponquogue Marine Basin 86 Foster Avenue Ham ton Be C 37 Paul W.Vigliotts Northeastern Landscape Design& 240 Frowein Road Center Moriches B- Dev.Corp. 38N Elmer H.Zen Zen Brothers 375 Middle CountryRoad CaNerton A - 38S Elmer H.Zen Zen Brothers 375 Middle Country Road CaNerton A 39 Frank Zimmer Zimmer Farts Main Road P.O.Box 355 Orient 40 Richard J.Magg 133-05 Oregon Road tM2thtuck B- 1-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 1-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Program Eight 8 Sites Considered No. Owner/Agent Organization Site Address LocationlTown Retinal 1 Frederick W.Koehler Os re 's Dominion Vineyards 44075 Main Road-Peconic Peconic S+ 3 Christopher Kelly Palmer Vineyards 108 or 208 Sound Avenue Northville B+ 5 Harry Hanley Eberhard&Hanley 198 Head of Neck Road Manorville A 9 Charles Scheer Half Hollow Nursery,Inc. 2120 Main Road Laurel B+ 27 Kurt Van dewatering Ivy Acres,Inc. 2296 Sound.Avenue Salting Hollow A 32 James J.Stakey Jim Stakey Greenhouses 324 West Lane P.O.Box 950 A ue ue B+ 38N Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle Count Road Calverton A 38S Elmer H.Zeh Zeh Brothers 375 Middle CountryRoad Calverton A E. PROJECT BENEFITS The major benefits of a wind turbine are the production of electric energy without burning any fossil fuels and emitting any air pollutants. A wind turbine is a renewable energy source that would produce electricity without consuming any fuel resources and without generating any pollution. Over a 20-year period, each wind turbine would eliminate the use of approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas, and would eliminate the emission of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates. F. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach to generate community support for the demonstration process began with the town supervisors of Brookhaven,Riverhead and Southold, in whose townships the top rated sites are situated. In Southold, the town supervisors and town board have provided guidance on group contacts in the town. Contact with Southold town officials and community leaders will continue during the development of the Peconic site. In Southold LIPA and/or the Long Island Farm Bureau have contacted and provided project information to the Sustainable Energy Alliance and the North Fork Environmental Council. Both groups expressed their support for the project. Information has and will be provided in multiple formats, including via telephone conversation, in-person meetings, written (correspondence and printed versions of Power Point presentation) and electronic (LIPA Web site and e-mail). _ Follow up contact with the above groups and new contact with additional groups will be made, as appropriate,before and during development of the selected sites. 16 Chapter 2: Peconic Site A. INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION This analysis examines the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposed wind turbine unit to be sited at the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, located at 44075 Main Road, in the Peconic area of the Town of Southold in Suffolk County,Long Island. SITE LOCATION The project site is located in the west center portion of a 50-acre parcel of land owned by Frederick W. Koehler.It also serves as the location of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards winery. The site of Osprey's Dominion Winery is bordered to the south by Main Road, Peconic Lane and Carroll Avenue to the west, The Long Island Railroad's Main Line tracks to the north, and additional agricultural parcels to the east (see Figure 2-1). The immediate proposed site is located in a flat, grass-covered, rectangular area, adjacent to vineyards and buildings associated with the winery(see Figure 2-2). AGENCY ACTIONS,PERMITS,AND APPROVALS Other than compliance by LIPA with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),no discretionary federal, state, or municipal approvals or permits are required for the proposed action. B. LAND USE, ZONING, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES METHODOLOGY This section describes existing land use, zoning, and community facilities in the vicinity of the project site and evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project on these features. Information relative to existing land use, zoning, and community facilities was obtained through several sources, including Geographical Information System (GIS), supplemented by field surveys conducted by Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. in late April 2002, and information taken from the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. This section analyzes two study areas, a primary study area extending roughly %a mile from the proposed site, and a secondary study area extending roughly 1 mile from the proposed site. These two study areas include the area within which the proposed project could reasonably be expected to exert some degree of influence on future land use patterns and neighborhood character. The %:-mile study area was chosen to assess the potential land use conflicts of the proposed project on the immediate surrounding area, and the 1-mile study area was chosen to assess the more indirect, or secondary effects of the proposed project on the surrounding area, 2-1 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project such as compatibility with the general land use patterns. Since the project is expected to be completed by the end of 2002, it is not necessary to conduct a separate analysis of the future without the proposed project since conditions are not expected to materially change from the current conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS LAND USE Project Site The proposed project site is an agricultural property used historically for farming. The immediate project site is a flat, grass-covered area located adjacent to an area used for cultivating grape vines and approximately 200 feet from an aluminum storage building (see Figure 2-3). &12-Mile Study Area The majority of the %2-mile study area is used for agricultural purposes. There are low and medium-density residential, vacant, and commercial uses along Main Road to the south of the proposed site, and north between the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Main Line tracks and Middle Road. Additional uses west of the proposed site, along Carroll Avenue and Peconic Lane,include recreation and open space associated with the public school,and industrial. 1-Mile Study Area The land use for this study area remains the essentially the same as the '/2-mile study area except for small parcels of high density residential uses along Ackerly Pond Lane to the east, and along Middle Road, northwest of the proposed site. Within this study area, both agricultural and residential land uses are significantly expanded in all directions. This includes mixed-density residential uses along Harbor Road and Bayview Road to east and southeast, along Wells Road to the south, and along Henry's Lane that runs perpendicular to Middle Road to the northwest. Large parcels of vacant land uses also exist to the south, along Richmond Creek, to the northwest along Mill Road, and north along Sound View Avenue. Additional recreation land use exists at Goldsmith's Inlet Park northwest of the proposed site. ZONING Project Site The land near the proposed project site is situated in the Agricultural-Conservation Zoning District (A-C). According to the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold, the Agricultural Conservation district permits uses that prevent the unnecessary loss of currently open lands containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils, and areas containing sensitive environmental features such as aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. Uses that are permitted in this zone include one-family dwellings, agricultural operations, and accessory uses such as irrigation that are instrumental for agricultural uses(see Figure 2-4).Dwellings constructed within the A-C district are limited to a minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet (2-acres) and width of 175 feet. In addition,this district contains a height limitation of 35 feet. 2-2 t . t ~AW log - ik �� t� 9-oz . a.1Tlbi. a.^n•` +NQRMw+11N+h�Mc`dM YOMbMN. ' .n �}MtM1 � r 'n!. M'.tnM.. ? _y •� b 01 - ' ��,}}'n 1• {:�"4 _•tom Ny • I �Y.':�' -ryd1 y. M.+r! W.`� 'ha]tl LzT, ja{/F-y Peconic Site Location LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-2 <Y.Y. `-r 3t: ?hx- �5 ih l yA I� tir 3 7F 3 L• � ,M lL 5r Source:Allee King Rosen&Fleming,Inc.,May 2002;U.S.Census TIGER Line File,2000 Town of Southold,2002:Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold.2001. ® Project Site Agriculture ��-0 Feet g Recreation and Open Space 0 s>o 1.G00 1500 2,00n pn= 0.5 Mile Study Area Commerical Residential 0 1 Mile Study Area Industrial Town-and Stale-owned land —� Long Island Rail Road Institutional Utilities PeCOnic ® Roadway Vacant Surface Waters Existing Land Use Figure 2-3 Long Island Power Authority wind Turbine Project 0 i °t °O 4 ••a•••y�muarnn d T" Source:Allee King Rosen 8 Fleming,Inc.,May 2002;U.S.Census TIGER Line File,2000; Town of Southold,2002;Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map,District 1000-Town of Southold,2001. i Project Site Low-Density Residential 40(R-40) General Business B r J-L�t—rlF.t P.4 ( ) o 5W r.M r.sco 21= 0.5 Mile Study Area Low-Density Residential 80(R-80) Hamlet Business(HB) Q 1 Mile Study Area ;_J Affordable Housing District(AHD) ® Limited Business(LB) Long Island Rail Road Residential Office(RO) Light Industrial Peconic ® Roadway Agricultural-Conservation(A-C) M Surface Waters Zoning Use Districts Figure 2-4 Long Island Power Authority wind Turbine Project Chapter 2:Peconic Site -Mile Study Area Although the vast majority of the land within the Y2-mile study area is zoned A-C, there are an additional seven zoning districts found within the study area. The zoning districts include: Low Density Residential 40 (R-40),-Low Density Residential 80 (R-80), General Business (B), Residential Office (RO), Light Industry (LI), Hamlet Business (HB), and Limited Business (LB). The R-40 and R-80 zoning districts are designed to provide areas for residential development where existing neighborhood characteristics, water supply, and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one dwelling per 40,000 square feet (R-40) or per 80,000 square feet(R-80), and where open space and agricultural preservation are not predominant objectives. These districts permit the same uses as the A-R district with the exception of recreational camps, farm labor camps, animal hospitals, libraries, museums, art galleries. The only exception between the R-80 and A-C districts in terms of area and height is that the minimum width requirement is 150 feet in R-80, compared to 175 in A-C. I-Mile Study Area This study area contains the same zoning districts as the -mile study area. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Project Site An inventory of community facilities (schools, libraries, houses of worship, etc.) has been taken within a '/2 mile and 1 mile radius of the project site to determine if there might be any potential impacts of the proposed wind turbine on these facilities. Figure 2-5 depicts the community facilities within the %a-mile study area and 1-mile study area. '/2-Mile Study Area The community facilities located within the '/2-mile study area include: the Peconic Lane Primary School (grades 1-3), which is located approximately 1,800 feet southwest of the project site on Peconic Lane; the Tasker Park and Peconic Lane Park, both located southwest of the project site on Peconic Lane; and a US Post Office located west of the project site. Tasker Park is equipped with 3 baseball fields, 3 tennis courts, a playground, and restroom facilities. 1-Mile Study Area The 1-mile study area has several community facilities. To the west of the project site is the Town of Southold Police Department located approximately 2,600 feet from the project site at the comer of Route 25 and Peconic Lane; Goldsmith's Inlet County Park, which is a 34-acre nature park located on Mill Road; a Suffolk County Water Authority property located on Middle Road; and a Town recharge basin located southwest of the project site. To the east of the project site is the Southold Fire Department Substation located 4,200 feet from the project site on Bayview Road; the Custer Institute, a public observatory loeated on Bayview Road; the Southold Indian Museum and Church of the Open Door, both of which are located on Bayview Road; the Willow Hill Cemetery located on Main Road, two Town parks situated on Main Road; and a Suffolk County Water Authority property located northeast of the project site. 2-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE Project Site The proposed facility would alter the current agricultural land use on the (25 feet by 35 feet) project site. However, the proposed facility would not conflict with the current agricultural use or character of the general area immediately adjacent to the project site or in close proximity to the project site.Historically,wind turbines or windmills have been part of the farm environment. -Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not alter the land use of the study area and would be compatible with prevailing land uses in the study area. 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not alter the land use of the study area and would be compatible with prevailing land uses in the study area. ZONING Project Site The proposed facility would exceed the height limitations and not be consistent with the permitted uses for an Agricultural-Conservation zoning district. Normally the project would require a variance for height and a special use permit from the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, and site plan approval from the Town of Southold Town Board. As a state authority, however, LIPA is not subject to local zoning regulations, nor required to comply with local zoning regulations. Nevertheless, to ensure a thorough consideration of potential impacts, an assessment of the proposed facility's conformance with the substance of the local zoning regulations has been performed. Specifically, this assessment considers whether the proposed facility, in the absence of LIPA's exemption from local zoning regulations, would,.be consistent with the Southold Town Code requirements for granting a special use permit to construct a public utility structure in an Agricultural-Conservation zoning district, an area variance for height, and site plan approval. I ecial Use Permit Regulations. Under Southold Town Code § 100-3 1(B)(6), public utility buildings and structures are permitted in all districts when approved as a special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zonng Board of Appeals may grant a special exception for a public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town, subject to surb conditions as the Board of Appeals may impose in order to protect and promote the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of the community and character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be considered. No special exception approval shall be granted unless the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically finds and determines that(a)the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health and welfare,the comfort,the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected 2-4 Chapter 2: Peconic Site by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter; (e) the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance; (f) all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily assessable for fire and police protection. See Town Code § 100-263. In making such determinations, the Zoning Board of Appeals must consider numerous factors, the following of which are potentially applicable to the proposed facility: (A) the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such permitted uses; (B) the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land; (C) the effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets, highways or sidewalks to assure public safety; (D) the availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use; (E) whether the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot; (F) whether the use will cause disturbing emission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise; (G) whether the operation in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, if existing or if proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies; (H) the necessity for bituminous -surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located; (I) whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result of the use, or by the structures to be used therefor, or by the inaccessibility of the property or structures thereon for convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus or by undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon such plot; (J) whether the use or the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population; (K) whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof; (L) whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area or place of public assembly, (M) whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use; (N) whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use; (0) whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate; and (P) whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. See Town Code § 100-264. In deciding on any application for a special exception use, the Zoning Board of Appeals may impose such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary or appropriate to preserve and protect the spirit and the objectives of this chapter. See Town Code § 100-265. Finally, the Zoning Board of Appeals must also consider the erection of public utility structures would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws. 2-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project The following is an analysis of the applicable factors required to be considered by the Board of Appeals before it may make a determination to allow a public utility structure in an Agricultural - Conservation zoning district: The character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of any such proposed uses. The project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and agricultural land uses predominate the land uses within %s mile of the site. Windmills have historically been part of the farm environment and the proposed use would be consistent with farm uses on and surrounding the project site. The conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land. As an historically consistent structure, the proposed project conforms to existing farmland uses on site and on the farms surrounding the project site and, therefore, encourages the continued use of those properties as presently zoned. The effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase of vehicular traffic congestion on public streets, highways or sidewalks to assure public safety. The proposed facility would only occasionally create a small number of vehicle trips, and thus would create no significant traffic congestion on public streets, highways or sidewalks. The availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use. The proposed facility would not cause or create and sewage, refuse or effluent as a result of its use or necessitate the availability of adequate or proper public or private water supply. Whether the use or the materials incidental thereto or produced thereby may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. The proposed facility would not give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. nether the use will cause disturbing emission of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. The proposed facility would cause no disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light or vibration. While the windmill would create some noise, no significant noise impacts would occur due to the proposed facility (see Noise Section K). Whether the operations in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public ofparking or of recreational facilities, if existing or if proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. The proposed project would not interfere with or have an impact on public parking or recreational facilities. The necessity for bituminous -surfaced space for purposes of off-street parking of vehicles incidental to -the use and whether such space is reasonably adequate and appropriate and can be furnished by the owner of the plot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located. 1-6 Chapter 2: Peconic Site The small number of vehicle trips generated by the use of the proposed facility would not require bituminous -surfaced space for the purposes of off-street parking of vehicles. Whether a hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, erosion or panic may be created by reason or as a result of the use, or by the structures to be used therefor or by the inaccessibility of the plot or structure thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus. The windmill would create no fire, erosion or panic hazard and would be accessible to fire and other emergency apparatus. Whether the use or the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. The proposed facility would be cited on land used for agricultural purposes and would not cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. Whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof. Considering the current agricultural use, flat surface and exposure to prevailing winds, the plot area contemplated for the proposed facility is adequate for the proposed operation of a windmill. Whether the use to be operated is unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area or place of public assembly. The closest community facilities, a primary school, two town parks, and a post office are located approximately '/2 mile away from the proposed facility and would not be impacted by the erection of a windmill, which would create no significant adverse impacts to air quality, noise or visual resources. Whether the site of the proposed use is particularly suitable for such use. The site was chosen particularly because of it is flat and located on land exposed to prevailing winds. Whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent - properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use. Visual impacts of the proposed facility are minimal. (See Section D., "Visual Resources."). Whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate. The proposed facility would not generate and stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse or other liquid, solid or gaseous waste, therefore there would be no provisions for their collection and disposal. Whether the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. Use of the proposed facility would not pose a risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. Whether the provisions of the laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of all state, federal and local agencies or bureaus applicable to such uses have been complied with. 2-7 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project The proposed facility would be constructed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements. Based upon consideration of these factors, the Board of Appeals would be able to determine that the erection of the wind turbine on the project site would not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or specially permitted uses in adjacent zoning districts. The wind turbine would require only a small piece of property in the midst of farmland. The wind turbine would be connected to existing transmission lines via underground wires. Accordingly, the wind turbine would not interfere with existing uses or development of adjacent properties or zoning districts. In addition, the wind turbine would not adversely affect health and safety. On the contrary, the wind turbine provides an opportunity for increased energy diversity and a reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases, all of which benefit public health. Finally, as the wind turbine is consistent with each of the other required determinations, and is also consistent with historical agricultural uses, the use would be in harmony with and would promote the general purposes of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, the proposed facility would comply with the standards applicable for the granting of a special permit to construct a public utility building or structure. Height Regulations. The permitted maximum height permitted in the zoning district in which the project site is located is 35 feet. If LIPA were not exempt from local zoning regulations, the proposed facility would require a variance to exceed the maximum height by 95 feet. Southold Town Code § 100-271 grants the Zoning Board of Appeals the power to vary or modify the application of such regulations relative to the Town Code "so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public health, safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done." A variance for a use of land that does not meet the dimensional or physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulation may be granted by the Board of Appeals upon a determination that the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance was granted. In balancing the needs of the variance applicant against those of the community, Town Law § 267-b requires the Board of Appeals to consider whether: (a) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; (b) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the variance; (c) the requested variance is substantial; (d) the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) the alleged difficulty was self-created. In the case of the proposed facility, the 95-foot exceedence of the permitted maximum height is necessary so that the proposed facility is high enough to capture the wind required to generate electricity. The proposed facility would not cause a significant detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community. As stated above, windmills have historically been part of the farm environment and, thus, the construction of the proposed facility would not produce a change in the character of the neighborhood, but rather would be consistent with the character of the project site and the nearby properties. The height exceedence that would be required for the windmill is substantial, however, at a lower height, the proposed facility would not be effective. Thus, there would be no feasible alternative to the height variance that would be required but for LIPA's exemption from local zoning. The proposed facility would not have an adverse environmental impact; indeed it would provide an environmental benefit by providing an 2-8 Chapter 2: Peconic Site opportunity for increased energy diversity, a reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases. While the proposed facility would create some noise, the increased noise levels are not significant (see Section K., "Noise"). Finally, the need to exceed the maximum height restriction was not self-created; the project -site was selected based on a number of factors, which combined seek to maximize the success of the proposed facility by providing maximum access to unobstructed prevailing winds while ensuring access to LIPA's power grid and adequate distance from the nearest residences. Based on the analysis above, the benefit to the applicant would not be outweighed by a detriment to health, safety and welfare if a variance were necessary. Accordingly, the Board of Appeals would be within its discretion to grant a height variance if such a variance was required. Site Plan Regulations. Southold Town Code § 100-252 authorizes the Southold Town Planning Board to approve a site plan if such site plan meets a number of objectives. The site plan requirements are discussed below. The site plan proposes adequate traffic accessways in terms of number, width, grade, alignment and visibility, relationship of location to intersections, pedestrian accessways and places of assembly, and are in conformance with overall traffic safety considerations. The proposed facility would only occasionally create limited vehicular trips; access to the project site would be over an existing driveway. The proposed site provides adequate off-street parking and loading spaces to satisfy the parking needs of the proposed uses and that convenient access to such parking spaces is provided which promotes pedestrian safety and will not impede existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow. No parking would be necessary. The proposed facility would provide adequate landscaping and screening from adjacent residential uses. The project site is located well within the boundaries of the existing farm, which would buffer the base of the windmill from neighboring properties. The proposed facility preserves the natural features on and adjacent to the existing site. The proposed facility is consistent with existing historic farmland uses, thereby preserving the existing features. The proposed facility would feature paved areas that are both aesthetically pleasing and a safe combination of pavement and plantings intended for use by pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed facility would not feature paved areas and would not be accessible by the public. Any sound that the facility produces shall be located to minimize sound to adjoining properties or on the adjacent street. The sound produced by the proposed facility will have no significant impact on adjoining properties or streets. The site plan provides for the placement of lights and lighted signs so as not to cause direct light to shine on other properties. There are no lights associated with the proposed facility. 2-9 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project The site plans provides for adequate grading and drainage of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed facility The proposed facility will have no impact on existing grades on site. The proposed facility conforms to existing public requirements and standards with regard to use of public utilities. The proposed facility would not use any public utilities. The site plan illustrates that the facility is consistent with existing development and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. The proposed facility conforms to the existing development of an agricultural site and the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Town of Southold. The proposed facility would exhibit architectural features in conformance with the prevailing character of the neighborhood Architecturally, the proposed facility is consistent with historical farmland uses and it would be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood. The site plan and building design accommodates the needs of the handicapped. The proposed facility would not be accessible to the public and does not need to be handicapped accessible. Thus, the proposed facility would conform to the requirements of the conditions for site plan approval if such approval were required. /:-Mile Study Area While LIPA is a state authority and not subject to local zoning regulations, nor required to comply with local zoning regulations, the proposed facility would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning in the %:-mile study area. I -Mile Study Area While LIPA is a state authority and not subject to local zoning regulations, nor required to comply with local zoning regulations, the proposed facility would not have a significant adverse impact on zoning in the 1-mile study area. COMMUNITYFACILITIES Project Site Since there are no community facilities at the project site, no impacts on community facilities are expected. %:-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any community facilities within the ''/:-mile study area. It would not affect the ability of any community facility to serve the community. Moreover, the proposed facility would not have significant adverse air quality, noise, or visual impacts on any community facilities. 2-10 Chapter 2: Peconic Site 1-Mile Study Area The proposed facility would not significantly impact any community facilities within the 1-mile study area. It would not affect the ability of any community facility to serve the community. Moreover, the proposed facility -would not have significant adverse air quality, noise, or visual impacts on any community facilities. C. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES HISTORIC RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This section considers the potential for the proposed project to affect historic resources in the vicinity of the project site. For this analysis, the section addresses a study area of %, mile and 1 mile from the project site. Within this study area, historic resources were identified and the potential effects on the resources were assessed. Effects are determined at locations where proposed construction activities may occur within close proximity to a historic structure to potentially cause structural damage, and also account for visual or contextual impacts. Historic resources were located through their listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places, and as National Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts. Since the proposed facility is scheduled to be operable by the end of 2002, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed action, since conditions would not materially change from the existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Proiect Site. There are no designated landmarks located at the project site �12-Mile. There are no designated landmarks located within the %z-mile study area. 1-Mile Study Area. There are no designated State or National landmarks located within the 1- mile study area. However, the Town of Southold has approved the designation of local historic landmarks under its Landmark Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 56 of the Town Code). The law is designed to protect and maintain the character of historically significant properties within the Township. There are four sites on the local register of historic landmarks located within the 1- mile study area: Town Doctor's House located on Ackerly Pond Road, Joseph Reeve House located on Lower Road, Abijah Corey House located on Main Bayview Road, and Deacon James Horton House also located on Main Bayview Road. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Proiect Site. Since there are no designated landmarks at the project site, no impacts on historic resources are expected. Mile. Since there are no designated landmarks within the %-mile study area, no impacts on historic resources are expected. I Mile Studv Area. The proposed facility would not significantly impact any historic resources within the 1-mile study area. 2-11 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This archaeological assessment -vas directed at identifying whether there were any archaeological concerns regarding construction of the proposed wind turbine at the Peconic site. Existing conditions were determined through two phases, the first being limited background research designed to estimate the potential for precontact and historical archaeological resources to exist at the project site. A Phase I Archaeological Assessment, including documentary research and field investigations, was undertaken by Historical Perspectives, Inc., (HPI) in May 2002 for the Peconic site. Data were gathered to compare the precontact past, the historical past, and the subsurface disturbance record. Research to accomplish these goals included: • Identifying categories of potential archeological resources through documentary and cartographic research at repositories such as the New York Public Library (NYPL), the Suffolk County Archaeology Association (SCAA) records at Hauppauge Town Hall, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), and the New York State Museum site files (NYSM) files and archives (e.g., predictive models, regional studies, planning documents, and site inventory forms). • Examining the land use history of the project site in order to estimate the extent of subsurface impacts by reviewing atlases and/or maps at specified time intervals; and, • Identifying resource types which may have remained undisturbed. • Subsequently, Phase 113 field-testing was undertaken to establish the presence or absence of archaeological resources to confirm existing conditions. To accomplish these goals, subsurface testing, in the form of 50 x 50 cm hand excavated shovel test pits (STPS), was conducted at intervals which formed a crucifix pattern over the project site. Where this was not possible due to topographic constraints, judgmental STPs were completed. All excavated soil was screened through %,-inch hardware cloth, and cultural material encountered was recovered and bagged according to natural stratigraphy. Relevant information about each test location, including depth, stratigraphy, anomalies, disturbance, and artifact content, was recorded. Any artifacts encountered were returned to a laboratory for further analysis. EXISTING CONDITIONS Precontact Resources Precontact Sensitivity. Long Island, and more specifically, the Southold area, has been utilized by precontact peoples for thousands of years spanning the Paleohidian, Archaic, Transitional, and Woodland periods. Archaeological work conclusively proves that Native Americans occupied this area utilizing both coastal and inland resources (e.g., Lightfoot et al 1985:61; Bernstein et al 1996:126). A site file search undertaken at the SCAA records in Hauppauge, the NYSM, and the NYSOPRHP found four previously inventoried precontact period State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) sites, and eight previously completed archaeological surveys within one mile of the Peconic project site (see Attachment Q. The following SHPO sites were identified (see Table 2-1). 2-/2 Chapter 2: Peconic Site Table 2-1 Identified Precontact Period State Historic Preservation Office Sites SHPO Site # Location Site Type Artifact Description Al0310.000030 Richmond Creek Lithic Workshop Quartz points, blades, flakes, 1 mile SW etc. A10310.000224 Mill Lane Woodland Adena, Levanna & Lamoka (SCAA #351) +1- 1 mile NW QtZ Proj• Pts. A10310.000225 Goldsmith Inlet Woodland NA +/- 1 mile NW Al0310.000244 Bowery Lane NA NA +/- % mile NE Sources: Suffolk County Archaeology Association (SCAA), the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP), and the New York State Museum site files (NYSM Of the eight archaeological surveys, the first was completed at Goldsmith Inlet County Park in 1980 (Johannemann 1980a:2), and identified site A10310.000224 (SCAA #351) described above. Goldsmith Inlet is a saltwater pond near the coast about 1 mile northwest of the project site. The second survey was undertaken at the Peconic Dunes County Park, about 1 mile north of the project site on the coast (Johannemann 1980b:1), where field testing was recommended due to high archaeological potential. The third survey was undertaken for the Richmond Creek Farms Subdivision, south of Route 25 near Richmond Creek, about 3/4 to 1 mile southwest of the project site (Billadello and Johannemann 1987:27). Site A10310.000030, a quartz lithic processing station, was identified on the property in proximity to the Richmond Creek. A Stage 2 investigation of the precontact loci at Richmond Creek Farms found that the site contained a light density of lithics, the vast majority of which were found in the plow zone. The site was found to lack the criteria necessary for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (Bernstein and Lenardi 1999:15). East of the project site, two archaeological surveys were completed in the Village of Southold, one for the Southold Villas Project (Barber and Bonasera 1991:6), and one for the Route 25, Highland Road, Cutchogue to Sixth Street project (Silver and Merwin 1995:1). Neither of these surveys identified precontact sites within their boundaries. Closest to the project site, a Phase I survey was undertaken for the proposed Middle (North) Road Wells in Peconic (Cammisa 2000:1). Phase IB field testing found no precontact resources within the boundaries of that project site (Ibid.:13). Finally, to the northwest of the project site, also on North Road, a Phase 1 study of the Agri -Business Child Development property was undertaken in 2001 (Bernstein et al). Phase 1B testing at the site failed to recover an precontact material (Ibid.:20). The SCAA records reported numerous previously identified precontact sites along the shores of the Peconic Bay, but none in proximity to the project site. Two sites identified in Peconic were located at Richmond Creek and Indian Neck, south of the project site (SCAA #720, 721). In a 1978 report on the archaeological sensitivity of Suffolk County, archaeologists used existing cultural resource inventories to establish areas of high, moderate, and low precontact activity 2-13 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project within the county. At that time, the current project site fell within an area of intensive aboriginal activity, or high sensitivity (Suffolk County Archaeological Association 1978). Areas that had intensive aboriginal habitation were centered around Peconic Bay and along inland river channels, but extended north as far as the Peconic site. The sensitivity for precontact resources at the Peconic site is considered to be high. The site's proximity to fresh water, a small wetland is located within approximately 200 feet, suggests it would have a relatively high potential for precontact resources. Fieldwork was designed to test this assessment. Results of Field Investieation. No precontact material was recovered from any of the STPs excavated (see Attachment Q. The Phase I field investigation found no potentially significant precontact resources within Site 1, confirming that the site has no precontact potential. Historical Resources Historical Sensitivity. In 1702 a cart path was laid out through the woodlands of Riverhead, facilitating travel from Southold to Brookhaven Town. Maps from the 17th through early 19th century do not depict structures or townships in proximity to the project site; however they do depict a system of established roads (Ryder 1675, Southark 1734; Colton 1836; Mather 1842). In 1836, 1842, and 1844 the project site was depicted as vacant, with the closest development being a series of structures fronting the north side of Route 25 to the south (Colton 1836; Mather 1842; Colton 1844). In 1858 the project site was depicted as vacant, with the closest structures still fronting on Route 25 (Chance 1858), south of the project site and on Peconic Avenue, west of the project site. The site appeared unchanged in 1873 (Beers 1873). Despite the growth of the region and increased residential development along Route 25, the project site remained vacant in 1906 and 1929 (Hyde 1906; Dolph and Stewart 1929). It appears that throughout the 20th century, the project site remained undeveloped and was probably continually used as agricultural land. The only historic sites inventoried within a 1-mile radius of the project site are SHPO Site A10310.000015, the Great Western Mill, located in ---- the hamlet of Southold, and Site A10310.000227, a 19th century refuse midden near Goldsmith Inlet. The mill was built in ca.1679 and was utilized through ca.1870 (see Attachment Q. No features or signs of historical structures were observed on the project site property when the Phase 1B field testing was undertaken. Currently the site is under cultivation as a vineyard. The lack of historic features, coupled with the lack of historic development portrayed on maps and atlases, suggested that this site had almost no potential for historical resources. Fieldwork was designed to test these hypotheses. Results of Field Investi atg ions. No historical features or potentially important resources were observed at the site, and none were found in any of the STPs (see Attachment Q. Therefore, the Phase I testing confirmed that the site has no potential for historical period resources. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed LIPA facilities installation would have no negative impact on any potential archaeological resources at the Peconic site, since none were indicated by research or identified 2-14 Chapter 2: Peconic Site during the Phase IB field investigation. Therefore, no archaeological resources would be impacted by the proposed project and no additional research or field investigations are recommended for this site. D. VISUAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY Following the methodology set forth by NYSDEC to assess visual impacts, significant scenic and aesthetic resources include properties on or eligible for inclusion in the State or National Register of Historic Places; state parks; urban cultural parks; state forests; National Wildlife Refuges; National Natural Landmarks; National Parks; national or state wild, scenic, or recreational rivers; sites eligible for designation as scenic; state or federally designated trails; and state nature and historic preserve areas. This analysis describes the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding area within '/2 mile of the project site, and assesses the effects of the proposed facility on the existing visual quality and design characteristics of the site and study area. The analysis examines building types, heights, materials, and topography. In addition, the wind turbine tower was superimposed onto a photograph taken in the field to further analyze whether the tower would diminish the visual character of surrounding neighborhood. The potential visual impacts were assessed based on field visits to the project site and surrounding study area in April and May 2002, and utilizing aerial photography of the project area. Because the facility is expected to be constructed and operating in fall 2002, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed project, since conditions would not materially change from the existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT SITE The project site is located on Osprey's Dominion Vineyards. It is relatively flat with grass as the dominant ground cover. The project facility would be located in the northeast quadrant of the grassy area adjacent to planted grape vines. STUDYAREA The study area is principally composed of farmland to the north, east, south, and west. Sporadic residential houses primarily exist further from the project site to the south along Route 25 and to the west along Peconic Lane. North of the project site is additional residential development as well as the LIRR. Also located in the %: mile project site is a NYSDEC freshwater wetland and the mouth of Richmond Creek. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS With the proposed project, the (25 feet by 35 feet) project site would be altered from an agricultural parcel of land to a small wind turbine facility containing the wind turbine on top of a support tower and some relatively small control equipment. At most locations, the only visible 1-15 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project feature of the proposed facility would be the latticed tower and the three turbine blades. The tower rises to a height of 100 feet, and the turbine blades are approximately 25 feet in length, yielding a facility that has a maximum height of 125 feet and a maximum width of 50 feet. The remainder of the facility, including the control equipment and surrounding fencing, would be similar to or less than that of ariy surrounding structure. The proposed facility would be constructed of materials and colored in such a manner as to blend in visually with the surrounding structures and features. The proposed facility would be visible for some distance from the project site, but would not have an adverse visual impact. The open, latticed structure, and graylblue colors would blend into the surroundings. Photosimulations have been prepared that show two views of the project site, with and without the wind turbine facility, from a distance of approximately 565 feet looking north from Route 25, the nearest visual receptor (see Figure 2-6a) and from a distance of approximately 650 feet looking northeast from Route 25 (Figure 2-6b). The photo simulations show that, while visible behind the main building of the winery on Route 25, the proposed facility is similar to the flagpole on the right and the surrounding trees in terms of congruity and visibility (see Figures 2-6a and 2-6b). Therefore, while the proposed facility is relatively perceptible, no significant sensitive visual resources or view corridors would be adversely affected. E. NATURAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY This section addresses natural resource issues, presents information on the site's existing resources, and identifies potential impacts of the proposed project. Field surveys were conducted during April 2002 to evaluate whether any natural resources are present on the site. The discussion of resources was also based on existing information and data from the Natural Heritage Program. The Natural Heritage Program maintains a database of rare or state -listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats that occur in New York State. Since the facility is expected to be constructed and. operating by the end of 2002, and conditions would not substantially change from existing conditions, it is not necessary to conduct an analysis of the future without the proposed project. EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS The project site is an existing vineyard thus the ground cover is planted grape vines. The project site would be located in the vineyard rows. No significant natural resources were found on -site. The Natural Heritage Program database found that two sensitive plant species may occur in the Peconic vicinity. Woodland agrimony (Agrimonia rostellata), and orange fringed orchis (Platanthera ciliaris) were last in the Peconic area in the early 20th century and therefore have more than likely been extirpated from this area. The woodland agrimony is generally found in dry wooded areas. Because the project site is an existing vineyard, it can be concluded that this particular species would not occur on the project site. 2-16 8.02 View North from Route 25 without the proposed project View North from Route 25 with the proposed project Peconic LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-6a 8•o, View northeast from Route 25 without the proposed project. View northeast from Route 25 with the proposed project Peconic LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY WIND TURBINE PROJECT Figure 2-6b Chapter 2: Peconic Site health impacts, field personnel would be instructed to be aware of staining and/or odors. If any staining or odors are noted by field personnel during construction, excavation activities would be stopped and appropriate measures would be taken prior to resuming such activities. These measures would include the infplementation of a construction Health and Safety Plan, which would detail appropriate testing and/or monitoring to assure that the construction workers, site abutters and the environment are not adversely affected by the construction activities. With these measures, and based upon the sites previous farming use and field observations, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the construction activities associated with the proposed facility. G. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION METHODOLOGY The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 sets forth standard policies for reviewing proposed projects along coastlines. The New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) administers the program at the state level. The 44 statewide policies for waterfront protection and improvement address public access, recreation, development, flood and erosion hazards, water resources, fish and wildlife, scenic quality, cultural resources, and air quality. Each of the State's 44 policies is discussed in Attachment A of this application. Many of these policies do not apply to the proposed project. Those policies that apply to this particular site are discussed below. POLICY ANALYSIS Policy 23: Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas, or sites that are of signifi- cance in the history, architecture, archeology, or culture of the State, its communities, or the nation. The proposed project would not adversely affect any structures, sites, or districts of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. Policy 24: Prevent impairment of scenic resources of Statewide significance. As described in the visual character analysis, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The proposed structures are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which in this case is agricultural. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views. Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area. The proposed site is farmed agricultural land which is consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project site is 0.02 acres, it is not expected that the proposed project would significantly impact agricultural lands. TOWN OF SOti I'HOLD LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM In addition to the 44 policies set forth by the State, the Town of Southold has developed 13 policies which are currently in draft form. These policies are used as guidelines for development and proposed actions in the Town. Z-19 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Thus, because the proposed facility would consist of a single, small turbine and would be situated in an area where bird use is likely to be low, the C&K study concluded that it would be highly improbable that the proposed facility would pose any significant adverse risk to birds. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on natural resources. F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS METHODOLOGY This chapter assesses the possibility that hazardous materials may be found in soil or groundwater on -site and evaluates the potential impacts associated with redevelopment of the site. To identify potential sources of hazardous materials, a Visual Hazardous Materials Site Assessment was performed at the site. This study included a visual inspection of the area to identify on -site hazardous material uses and to assess existing conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS The study site was located within an open field adjacent to vineyards and a storage/utility building for the vineyard. The site was chosen by LIPA based on its former and current agricultural use and has no known available history of industrial usage. No unusual staining or stressed vegetation was noted at the study site or surrounding area. No structures were located at the site or at surrounding areas that would impact the study area. Based on the location of the site, its current condition and the historical and current usage, the potential concerns associated with the proposed construction of the windmill would likely be the presence of pesticides and/or herbicides in the soil. Pesticides and/or herbicides have likely been applied to the soil over time to destroy insects and to inhibit the growth of weeds. The construction of a utility trench, may have the potential for exposure to impacts due to possible contaminants in the soil. The exact location of the utility trench would be determined prior to construction. Along with the potential pesticide and/or herbicide contamination in the soil, petroleum contamination may also be present in the area south of the site and north- northeast of the main building from off -site sources, including a locked pesticide storage trailer and a 500-gallon steel aboveground gasoline storage tank and associated dispenser. Potential pesticide and/or petroleum contamination in the soil may be present from historic leaks and/or poor housekeeping practices; however, no stressed vegetation and no unusual staining were noted on the surficial soil in these areas. The potential for impairment would likely be in the vicinity of these items and would not likely affect the site of the proposed windmill. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The development of the site would involve limited excavation and disturbance of the existing soil on the site. Construction activities may result in temporary increases in exposure pathways for construction workers and workers on nearby sites to the potential pesticide, herbicide and/or petroleum in the soil. Typically, concentrations of pesticides and herbicides used for farmland are not sufficient to require a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) during subsequent excavation in areas where such chemicals have been properly used. However, to avoid any potential adverse 1-18 Chapter 2: Peconic Site This policy does not apply. The project site is privately owned and would not be located on coastal waters. Policy 10: Protect the Town of Southold's water -dependent uses and promote siting of new water -dependent uses in suitable locations. The proposed project would not involve water -dependent uses. This policy is not applicable. Policy 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold. This policy is not applicable. Policy 12: Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. The proposed project would be sited on agricultural land, an existing vineyard, and therefore consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project site is 0.02 acres, it is not expected that the proposed project would significantly impact agricultural lands. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 13: Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. The proposed project is the development of a wind turbine, to produce energy. Wind turbines are an alternative, self-sustaining energy source. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. H. INFRASTRUCTURE METHODOLOGY The proposed facility at the Peconic site would initially generate a greater degree of activity to the project site during the construction phase than what currently exists. This activity would primarily involve construction vehicles and equipment and would not create a new demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management. Upon completion of the proposed facility, no new demand for water supply, sewage treatment, and solid waste management would be generated. As a producer of renewable energy, the proposed facility would contribute electrical power to the existing power grid. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SUPPLY As a private agricultural site, the existing water demands for the proposed site are for agricultural purposes. SANITARYSEWAGE As an agricultural land use, the site does not contribute any sewage flow. SOLID WASTE No solid waste is currently generated on the proposed site. 1-21 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project According to the Town of Southold, the following is a summary list of the LWRP policies: Policy 1: Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The proposed project would be developed on existing agricultural land utilizing existing developed areas instead of vacant, natural areas. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 2: Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold. The proposed project would not adversely affect historic resources in the Town. The Peconic site has been examined for this policy. In addition, no historic resources exist within '/2 mile of the project site. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 3: Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. As described in the visual resources analysis, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The propose structures are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which is agriculture. Therefore this project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4: Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Because of existing agricultural development and land uses, the project site does not contain natural features, such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, or other natural protective features. This policy does not apply. Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. This policy is not applicable. The proposed project would not involve the use or degradation of surface or groundwater. Polley 6: Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem. Given the nature of the proposed project site, agricultural land, there are no significant natural resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. This policy does not apply. Polley 7: Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold The proposed project would not degrade air quality in the Town or cause violations of State or National air quality standards. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 8: Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. The proposed project would not produce solid waste or hazardous substances or waste. Therefore, this policy does not apply. Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. 2-20 K. NOISE METHODOLOGY The noise analysis for the proposed operation of mechanical equipment occasionally generate a small number significantly affecting noise levels. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Chapter 2: Peconic Site wind turbine facility focuses on noise impacts from the at the project site. The proposed project would only of vehicle trips, which would not have the potential for "A "_WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA) Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dB). Because loudness is important in the assessment of the effects of noise on people, the dependence of loudness on frequency must be taken into account in the noise scale used in environmental assessments. One of the simplified scales that accounts for the dependence of perceived loudness on frequency is the use of a weighting network, known as A-weighting,in the measurement system, to simulate the response of the human ear. For most noise assessments, the A -weighted sound pressure level in units of dBA is used in view of its widespread recognition and its close correlation with perception. In the current study, all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A -weighted decibels. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS The average ability of an individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented (see Table 2-2). Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most listeners, whereas 10 dBA changes are normally perceived as doublings (or halvings) of noise levels. These guidelines permit direct estimation of an individual's probable perception of changes in noise levels. It is also possible to characterize the effects of noise on people by studying the aggregate response of people in communities. The rating method used for this purpose is based on a statistical analysis of the fluctuations in noise levels in a community, and integrating the fluctuating sound energy during a known period of time, most typically during 1 hour or 24 hours. Various government and research institutions have proposed criteria that attempt to relate changes in noise levels to community response. One commonly applied criterion for estimating response is incorporated into the community response scale proposed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) of the United Nations (see Table 2-3). This scale relates changes in noise level to the degree of community response and permits direct estimation of the probable response of a community to a predicted change in noise level. 2-23 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WATER SUPPLY The proposed project would not generate new demand for water supply. SANITARYSEWAGE The proposed project would not contribute any additional sanitary sewage flow to the existing sewer system. SOLID WASTE The proposed facility would not generate additional solid waste. ENERGY Over a 20-year period, the proposed facility is expected to contribute an additional 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electrical power annually to the existing power grid without generating any additional demand. I. TRAFFIC The proposed wind turbine facility would not generate any significant number of vehicle trips. After construction is completed, the only vehicle trips would be, at most, a weekly or biweekly visit to check that the facility is operating correctly, and a monthly or quarterly preventive maintenance trip. At most there would be four vehicle trips (two arrivals and two departures) in a peak hour. This small number of vehicle trips would not result in any significant impacts. J. AIR QUALITY The proposed wind turbine facility would have a beneficial effect on air quality. It would produce electrical energy without burning any fossil fuels and emitting any pollutants. Over a 20-year period, assuming 100,000 kwh of electrical power is generated annually, the wind turbine would result in the elimination of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates that would otherwise be emitted from fossil fuel fired power generating facilities. This estimate is based on information provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which compiled fuel usage and emission factors from a typical mix of fossil fuel fired utilities in New York State, as well as United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors and LIPA system average heat rates. In addition, over the same 20-year period, the wind turbines would eliminate the use of approximately 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas. 1-12 Chapter 2: Peconic Site relationship between L.g and the levels of exceedance will depend on the character of the noise. In community noise measurements, it has been observed that the L.g is generally between Lio and L50. The relationship between Leg and exceedance levels has been used in the current studies to characterize the noise sources and to determine the nature and extent of their impact at all receptor locations. For purposes of the proposed project, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Lq(l)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. Lq(l) is a noise descriptor that is widely used for project impact evaluation, including stationary source equipment noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels. NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA There are a variety of noise standards and guidelines that have been promulgated by various city, state, and federal agencies. A number of these agencies criteria are discussed below. However, none of these criteria are directly applicable to the proposed facility. SOUTHOLD NOISE CODE The Town of Southold does not have a noise code which would be applicable to the proposed facility and would provide noise limits or contains impact criteria. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has noise criteria that it uses for projects subject to its jurisdiction. NYSDOT has adopted the noise criteria of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 CFR 772). These criteria have two components: a "fixed" noise criteria and a "relative" noise criteria. The fixed noise criteria consist of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which are shown in Table 2-4. These NAC depend on task interference due to noise interruption of various activities involving speech, which vary by land use. By NYSDOT policy, substantial fixed noise impacts occur when predicted traffic -noise levels equal or exceed the applicable NAC from this table. The second type of FHWA criterion is relative to existing noise levels. Substantial relative noise impacts occur when predicted traffic -noise levels increase by more than 5 decibels (i.e., 6 decibels or more) above existing noise levels. 2-25 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-2 Average Abilitv to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels Change dgp Human Perea lion of Sound 2-3 Barely perceptible 5 Readily noticeable 10 A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 A "dramatic change" 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound Sources: Bolt Beranek and Neuman, Inc., Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, June 1973. Table 2-3 Communitv Resnonse to Increases in Noise Levels Change dgp Category Description 0 None No observed reaction 5 Little Sporadic complaints 10 Medium Widespread complaints 15 Strong Threats of community action 40 Very strong Vigorous community action Sources: International Standards Organization, Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Re- sponses, ISOITC 43. New York: United Nations, November 1969). NOISE DESCRIPTORS USED INIMPA CTASSESSMENT Because the sound pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment and because very few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise over more extended periods have been developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over a specific period, as if it were a steady, unchanging sound. For this condition, a descriptor called the "equivalent sound level," or Lq,i, can be computed. This is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and period (e.g., 1 hour, denoted by Lropi, or 24 hours, denoted as Lw.), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time -varying sound. Statistical sound level descriptors —such as L1, L,o, Lso, and L90—are sometimes used to indicate noise levels that are exceeded 1, 10, 50, and 90 percent of the time, respectively. Discrete event peak levels are given as levels. The relationship between L,Q and levels of exceedance is worth noting. Because Lq is defined in energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is not simply related to the levels of exceedance. if the noise fluctuates very little, Lry will approximate L50 or the median level. If the noise fluctuates broadly, the L., will be approximately equal to the L10 value. If there are extreme fluctuations, the L., will exceed the background level by 10 or more decibels. Thus, the 2-24 Chapter 2: Peconic Site Table 2-5 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety Effect = Level Area Hearing loss L (24) s 70 dB All areas Outdoor activity Ldn s 55 dB Outdoors in residential areas and annoyance and interference farms, and other outdoor areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use. L (24) s 55 dB Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time, such as school yards, playgrounds, etc. Indoor activity interference Ld� s 45 dB Indoor residential areas and annoyance L, (24) <45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities, such as schools, etc. Sources: Report No. EPA-550/9-74-004, March 1974. 50 dBA exterior noise level would be reduced by typical building construction to approximately a 40 dBA interior value, which is a relatively low value. The 5.0 dBA relative change criteria, is consistent with increases in noise levels that are generally considered noticeable and likely to result in complaints. NOISE PREDICTION METHODOLOGY Noise levels for the wind turbine at each receptor locations were calculated using the following formula: where Lp = Lw -20 Log D - 0.6 LP = sound level at specified location Lw = sound power level D = distance from source (feet) While the sound pressure level varies with wind speed and direction, in general, the maximum sound power level is approximately 101 dB. EXISTLVG CONDITIONS SELECTION OF NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS A receptor site near residences or other sensitive receptor sites on roadways adjacent to the project site was selected for analysis. The receptor site was located on Route 25 (i.e., at 43000 Main Road), between Wells Road and Maple Avenue. The selected receptor site is representative of noise levels in the area, and is a location that has the potential for the largest increases in noise levels from the proposed facility. 2-27 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-4 FHWA Fixed Noise Criteria Activity Category Description of Activity A 57 Outdoors Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those quali- ties is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Outdoors Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Outdoors Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D None Undeveloped lands. E 52Indoors Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, li- braries, hospitals, and auditoriums. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) recently published a guidance document titled Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (October 6, 2000). This document states that increases from 0-3 dBA should have no appreciable effect on receptors, increases of 3-6 dBA may have the potential for adverse impact only in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present, and increases of more than 6 dBA may require a closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing noise levels and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. It goes on to say that in terms of threshold values, the addition of any noise source, in a non -industrial setting, should not raise the ambient noise level above a maximum of 65 dBA, and ambient noise levels in industrial or commercial areas may exceed 65 dBA with a high end of approximately 79 dBA. Projects which exceed these guidance levels should explore the feasibility of implementing mitigation. NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,. As a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, a document entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, was published in 1974 by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Table 2-5 shows these values. These levels do not constitute enforceable federal regulations or standards. Nevertheless, the noise levels identified by EPA represent valid criteria for evaluating the effect of project noise on public health and welfare. DIPACT CRITERIA For purposes of this project, the project would have a significant impact if noise levels with the project exceed an L,,i„ value of 50 dBA, and the project results in an increases in Lgl,i noise levels over future conditions without the project of greater than 5.0 dBA. Both conditions would have to occur in order to have a significant impact. The 50 dBA criteria is based upon a consideration of achieving a 40 dBA interior noise levels. Absent any special window treatment, typical building construction produces 10 dBA of attenuation with an open window. Therefore, a 2-26 Chapter 2: Peconic Site this residence to approximately 50.0, an increase of approximately 1.6 dBA. An increase of this magnitude would be an imperceptible and insignificant change in noise levels. Therefore, at all sensitive receptor locations, the proposed facility would not result in significant noise impacts. The above results are conservative, since they do not take into consideration wind noise, which would mask some, if not all of the noise generated by the wind turbine, on windy days. L. CONSTRtiCTION METHODOLOGY The proposed Peconic site is an existing vineyard. The site is relatively flat. There are no structures on the immediate project site and no demolition activities would be required for installation of the proposed facility. These activities generally fall within the following four phases: preconstruction site preparation; unit assembly and site finish; and utility connections (electrical distribution). Each of these activities, as well as potential project impacts, are described below. PRECONSTR UCTION SITE PREPARATION Pre -installation site preparation would start with clearing the site to remove any vegetation (at most this is a vacant lot with little shrub cover), grading to a level surface (limited grading may be required) and limited surface soil excavation. This would be followed by installation of the equipment slabs for the wind turbine units. Installation of the equipment pad would require excavation to accommodate a subbase and concrete foundation for the unit which would be approximately 21 feet long and 21 feet wide with a depth of 6 feet. The actual footprint of the site to accommodate a metal fence would be 30 feet by 35 feet. Excavated material would be removed from the site for off -site disposal. Soil erosion and sediment controls would be installed to reduce the potential for erosion and soil loss consistent with those in use by the Towns and the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. It is not expected that there would be the transport of significant soil from the site. All soils disposed off -site would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. Construction of the pad requires approximately 98 cubic yards of concrete. The foundation slab requires a soil bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Site preparation will require heavy equipment for grading and excavation and pad construction. This would include backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, and concrete trucks. During this period, which should last about I week (on average), there would be an estimated 10 workers at the site. Trucks trips would be heaviest during the pad installation and would amount to a peak of 10 per day, primarily for concrete delivery. Pre -installation site preparation activities would be undertaken immediately, so that when all approvals are obtained construction activities would not be delayed and the proposed facility would be operational by the end of 2002. 2-?9 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project NOISE MONITORING At the selected noise receptor site, a 20-minute noise measurement was made on a Saturday night/Sunday morning between 10 PM and 5 AM. The weekend late night/early morning period was selected, since this is the time -period when existing noise levels would be expected to be low and, consequently, project impacts would be expected to be the largest. It is also the time period when generally any nearby residences would be the most sensitive to increases in noise levels. During other hours project noise impacts would be expected to be lower than during the late night/early morning period. Equipment Used The noise monitoring was conducted using a Larson Davis Labs (LDL) Model NM24 microphone connected to an LDL preamplifier attached to an LDL Model 700 Type 1 (according to ANSI Standard S1.4-1983) sound level meter. The equipment was mounted at a height of 4 feet above the ground on a tripod. The meter was calibrated before and after readings with a Brael & Kjwr Type 4230 sound level calibrator using the appropriate adaptor. Measurements at each location were made on the A -scale (dBA) for a sampling period of 1 hour. The data were digitally recorded by the noise analyzer and displayed at the end of the measurement period in units of dBA. Measured quantities included L.,, L,, Lio, Lso, and 1.90 . A windscreen was used during all sound measurements except for calibration. All measurement procedures conformed with the requirements of ANSI Standard S1.13-1971 (R1976). Results of Measurements Existing monitored noise levels (LgIq and statistical noise levels) at the receptor site are summarized in Table 2-6. Measured noise levels at the measurement site are relatively low and reflect the relatively low traffic volumes on Route 25 and the fact that there are no significant noise sources in the area. Table 2-6 Noise Levels Adjacent to the Peconic wino 1 1 Route 25 1 48.4 1 61.0 1 46.0 1 41.0 1 37.5 1 Notes: All values in dBA. Values measured by Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc., on Sat./Sun. May 11th/12th 2002. NO BUILD CONDITIONS Since it is anticipated that the proposed facility would be in operation within 2 to 4 months, conditions without the proposed project would be the same as existing conditions (i.e., noise levels would be the same as those shown in Table 2-5). PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The closest residence to the project site is approximately 600 feet south on Route 25. At this residence, noise levels from the wind turbine would be approximately 44.8 dBA. Without the proposed facility, based upon the measured noise levels, nighttime Loot noise levels values would be approximately 48.4 dBA. The proposed wind turbine would increase the noise levels at 1-28 "' J -- Chapter 2: Pxonic Site Table 2-7 Tvpical Noise Emission Levels for Construction Equipment - Equipment Item Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) Air Compressor 81 Asphalt Spreader Paver 89 Asphalt Truck 88 Backhoe 85 Bulldozer 87 Compactor 80 Concrete Plant 83' Concrete Spreader 89 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Vibrator 76 Crane Derrick 76 Delivery Truck 88 Diamond Saw 902 Dredge 88 Dump Truck 88 Front End Loader 84 Gas -driven Vibro-compactor 76 Hoist 76 Jackhammer(Paving Breaker 88 Line Drill 98 Motor Crane 83 Pile Driver/Extractor 101 Pump 76 Roller 80 Shovel 82 Truck 88 Tug 853 Vibratory Pile Driver/Extractor 894 Notes: ' Wood, E.W. and A.R. Thompson, Sound Level Survey, Concrete Batch Plant: Limerick Generating Station, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Report 2825 Cambridge, MA, May 1974. ' New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation, Construction Noise Survey, Report No. NC-P2, Albany, NY, April 1974. l Bungener, J.H., Sound Level Survey: Wise's Landing, Kentucky, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Report 2880, Downers Grove, IL, June 1975. 4 F.B. Foster Company, Foster Vibro Driver/Extractors, Electric Series Brochure, W-925-10.75-5M. Sources: Patterson, W.N., R.A. Ely, and S.M. Swanson, Regulation of Construction Activity Noise, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Report 2887, 2-33 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project UNIT ASSEMBLYAND SITE FINISH The wind turbine tower would be delivered in five 20-foot sections for placement on foundations. An on -site crane is required to lift the components from the transport vehicles for placement on the individual equipment pads. Transport will likely be by truck. Other elements of the facility would be transported to the site in component parts for final on - site fabrication and assembly. On -site fabrication would generally require welding and bolting of pieces. Final site installation activities would include a 7-foot-high protective chain link fence, site lighting, and some landscaping. Total time for unit installation is about 4 weeks. During this phase about 10-20 employees would be at the site. Equipment would include cranes, compressors, and hand held equipment. UTILITY CONNECTIONS The proposed facility requires connections to an electrical distribution cable. A 15 kV solid electric feeder line would connect the generating unit to a nearby substation via an under -street conduit. This work would occur simultaneous with the on -site assembly. Electric connections between the generator set and substation/distribution equipment would not require excavation in public or private streets. Utility connections would require the use of jackhammers, backhoes, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. Final cover and paving would follow. This construction period would overlap with the unit installation. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND CONTROL METHODS TRAFFIC During construction, there would be new vehicle trips to and from the project site, including those from workers traveling to and from the site, as well as those from the movement of goods and equipment. The estimated average number of construction workers on site at any one time would vary, depending on the stage of construction. The maximum number of workers on site is estimated to be approximately 10-20 during construction. Given typical construction hours, worker trips would be concentrated in off-peak hours and would not represent a substantial increment during peak travel periods. Vehicle trips associated with construction would not be likely to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding streets. Truck movements for material delivery and removal would be spread throughout the day on weekdays, and would generally occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:30 PM, depending on the period of construction. The maximum number of trucks is estimated to be approximately 10 trucks per day during construction. A second shift may work between 4:30 and 7:30 PM. Trucks would use prescribed truck routes. Based on the relatively modest number of vehicular trips, and the short duration of construction, it is not anticipated that construction activities would result in any significant traffic impacts. 2-30 Chapter 2: Peconle Site H42ARDOUSMATERIALS As discussed in Section F., "Hazardous Materials," construction activities may result in temporary increases in exposure pathways for construction workers and workers on nearby sites to the potential pesticide, herbicide and/or petroleum in the soil. Typically, concentrations of pesticides and herbicides used for farmland are not sufficient to require a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) during subsequent excavation in areas where such chemicals have been properly used. However, to avoid any potential adverse health impacts, field personnel would be instructed to be aware of staining and/or odors. If any staining or odors are noted by field personnel during construction, excavation activities would be stopped and appropriate measures will be taken prior to resuming such activities. These measures would include the implementation of a construction HASP. The HASP would define worker safety training and monitoring procedures, personal protective equipment, air monitoring equipment, action levels, and appropriate mitigative and protective measures. In addition, all material removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. With these measures, no significant impacts would occur during construction. AIR QUALITY Possible impacts on local air quality during construction of the proposed project include fugitive dust (particulate) emissions from land -clearing operations and excavation; mobile source emissions, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from construction worker and delivery vehicles; and construction equipment operation. The impacts on air quality would be insignificant due to the limited excavation that is required. Fugitive Emissions Fugitive dust emissions from land -clearing operations can occur from excavation, hauling, dumping, spreading, grading, compaction, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas. Actual quantities of emissions depend on the extent and nature of the clearing operations, the type of equipment employed, the physical characteristics of the underlying soil, the speed at which construction vehicles are operated, and the type of fugitive dust control methods employed. EPA has suggested, in general, an overall emission rate of about 1.2 tons of particulate/acre/month of active construction from all phases of land -clearing operations with no fugitive dust control measures. However, this is a national estimate and actual emissions would vary widely depending on many factors, including the intensity and type of land -clearing operations. Much of the fugitive dust generated by construction activities consists of relatively large -size particles, which are expected to settle within a short distance from the construction site and not significantly affect people nearby. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures —including watering of exposed areas and dust covers for trucks —would be employed to minimize any impacts. As a result, no significant air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions would be anticipated. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions are emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles, referred to as mobile sources. During construction, such emissions may result from: (1) trucks delivering construction materials and removing debris; (2) workers' private vehicles; and (3) construction equipment operation. Because of the location of the site near adjacent roadways, truck deliveries 2-31 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Vibration Table 2-8 shows architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility distances for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities that would occur during construction of the .proposed project. Architectural damage includes cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, etc. Architectural damage is not considered potentially dangerous. The nearest residence is more than 600 feet from the project site. That is substantially beyond the distance for any perceptible impacts due to vibration from construction activities. Table 2-8 Vibration -Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings Damage Potential Distance (feet) Activity Perceptible Distance (feet) Architectural Structural Historic Residential Blasting 1,000 400 300 60 Pile Driving 200 90 50 12 Pavement Breaking 150 60 40 8 Bulldozing 60 30 20 3 Heavy Truck Traffic 50 20 15 3 Jackhammers 30 15 10 2 Sources: Wiss, John F. Construction Vibrations: State -of -the -Art. Journal of the Geo technical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107, No. GT2, February 1981. Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Earthbome Vibrations. ASSHTO Designation: R8-81 (1986). EROSION CONTROL Due to construction activities, there would be increased potential for on -site erosion and sedimentation. To minimize erosion, the disturbance to the site would be minimized by clearing vegetation and trees and excavating only in those areas planned for construction. An erosion and sediment control plan with sequencing and specific details has been prepared for the project utilizing the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control," the Towns guidelines as well as Suffolk County. Proper implementation of the plan, and its sequence and maintenance schedule, would ensure minimal impacts associated with construction -related soil disturbance. Erosion control would be accomplished through a combination of structural as well as vegetative measures. Several structural erosion and sediment control measures would be used. A series of temporary sediment traps would be strategically located within the project site, where runoff within the construction zones would be collected and settled. Straw bales would be used to protect all proposed catch basins and other drainage structure inlets. 1-34 Chapter 2: Peconic Site Anti -tracking entrances would be installed at the project entrances. In addition, silt fencing would be installed along contours directly below construction zones and used where sheet flow is likely to occur. This fencing would be installed prior to construction activity to delineate areas predetermined as construction_ zones. Temporary and permanent vegetative measures are proposed to stabilize soils on the site. M. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE While there currently is no requirement to include an environmental justice analysis as part of SEQRA, an environmental justice analysis has been provided for informational purposes. The focus of the environmental justice analysis is to determine whether the construction and operation of the proposed facility would have both adverse and disproportionate impacts on an environmental justice community. The first step in the analysis is to determine whether there is a low-income and/or minority population, or so-called "Community of Concern" (COC) that may be impacted by the proposed facility. Census tract data derived from both 1990 and 2000 Census information was used to determine minority status, income, and poverty level in the 1-mile study area surrounding each of the proposed sites. Census tract 1700, which includes census block groups, 1700.02.1, and census tract 1702.01, which includes census block groups, 1702.01.1, 1702.01.2,1702.01.3 and 1702.01.4, are located within the 1-mile study area of the proposed facility at the Peconic site (see Figure 2-7). As indicated by population and socio-economic data provided in Table 2-9, no census block groups within the Peconic study area could be identified as potential COC. In addition the percentage of households below poverty level (7 percent) and the minority population (4 percent) within the Peconic study area remain consistent with those of Suffolk County as a whole (5 percent and 15 percent respectively). Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will not impact a COC. Since there are no potential COC, minority or low income communities would not be disproportionately affected by the proposed facility. N. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed facility, combined with other wind turbine facilities proposed by LIPA as part of this demonstration project, would not have any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed facilities are widely dispersed (i.e., not located near one another). More important, impacts of each facility in terms of the relevant concems (i.e., land use, zoning, and community facilities; cultural resources; visual resources; natural resources; hazardous materials; waterfront revitalization; infrastructure; traffic; air quality; noise; construction; and environmental justice) are localized, small, and not significant. Based upon the distance between the proposed facilities (i.e., each facility is more than 2 miles from one another), and the small impact of each facility individually, it can be concluded that there would be no significant cumulative impacts from the five proposed facilities. 2-35 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Table 2-9 Peconic Ponnlation and Economic Characteristics Po ulation 2000 Census % HHs Tracts/ Percent ]face and Ethnicity (Percentage) Below Census Change Mod Poverty Block -000rotal 1990- White Black Asian Other Hispanic* Number of Income Leval Groups 2000 Households (51989) 1700 4. 667 4 94 2 1 2 5 1612 41,862 6 1700.02.1 1,081 157 94 1 1 2 4 249 41,862 8 1702.01 5,465 5 96 1 2 1 3 2281 36,288 7 1702.01.1 1,085 92 98 1 .03 .05 2 241 49.886 6 1702.01.2 632 -5 97 1 .02 0 2 256 22,437 7 1702.01.3 1254 138 98 1 0 1 2 216 46,944 8 1702.01.4 519 -43 89 3 1 6 8 507 32,716 5 Study 4648 35 96 1 .5 2 3 1469 -38,344 7 Area Suffolk 1,419,369 1 85 7 2 4 11 424,623 49,128 5 Cou Notes: • Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. — The median income was calculated by taking the weighted average of the median incomes of all the census tracts in a given study area. '-' Percent of households with incomes below established poverty level. The U.S. Census Bureau using its established income thresholds for poverty levels defines poverty levels. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 19W and 2000. 2-36 r • Project Site �uun� wuuu 0.5 Mile Study Area O 1 Mile Study Area Roadway Long Island Power Authority Wind Turbine Project 1702.01.3 A o,) d /0(6 rl_rl—r-----L ---- J----1 Foal o 50D 1000 1500 2.000 Peconic Census Tract and Block Group Figure 2-7 N14-16-2(9/95)-7c SEQR 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the - impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE — Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ® Part 1 ® Part 2 ❑ Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other suppc information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the agency that: ® A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required; therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a positive declaration will be declared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Suffolk County, Long Island. Name of Action Long Island Power Authority Name of Lead Agency Edward Grilli Chief of Staff Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Of Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from Date PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information yol believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify eacl instance. NAME OF ACTION Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Suffolk County, Long Island. LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) Frederick W. Koehler, 44075 Main Road, Peconic, Suffolk County, New York NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Long Island Power Authority (516 ) 222-7700 ADDRESS 333 Earle Ovington Blvd. Suite 403 CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Uniondale, NY 11553 NAME OF OWNER (It different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS 11 CITY/PO STATE I ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION - The Long Island Power Authority proposes to site, construct, and operates wind turbine generatorto demonstrate both the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources, and expand green sources of electricity on Long Island. This document refers to one of five sites selected for the wind turbine demonstration. Refer to Chapter 1 for the project description. I Please Complete Each Question —Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑ Urban o Industrial DCommercial ❑ Residential (suburban) ❑Rural (non -farm) ❑ Forest ® Agriculture ❑ Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 0.02• APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) energy production PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres _. 0.02 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 0.02 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven Loam a. Soil drainage: ® Well drained 100 % of site ❑ Moderately well drained % of site ❑ Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0.02 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑ Yes ® No a. What is depth to bedrock?" (in feet) 'Project would be located on 0.02 acres of a 50-acre parcel of land. "Bedrock is not expected to be a significant issue for construction of facilities. 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ® 0-10% 100 % ❑ 10-15% % ❑ 15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ❑ Yes ® No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑ Yes ® No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 10 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? H Yes ❑ No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ❑ Yes ® No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑ Yes ® No According to field visits conducted by Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. April 2002. The land is used for agricultural purposes Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ❑ Yes ® No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑ Yes ® No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N/A a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: WA a. Name b. Size (In acres) _ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ® Yes ❑ No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ® Yes ❑ No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑ Yes ® No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? IN Yes ❑ No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ® Yes ❑ No Site is located In a CEA. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑ Yes ® No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 0.02 acres b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.02 acres initially; 0.02 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) ae. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 0 %. f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 0 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 4 (upon completion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: WA One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately I. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed 125" height; 50 width; 10 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. " The structure will be a 100-foot tower with a wind turbine at the top with 25-foot blades. Cl 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 294 cubic yards tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑ Yes ® No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑ Yes ® No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? Negligible acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑ Yes ® No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction By the end of 2002 months (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased:N/A a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑ No B. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ® No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10-20 ; after project is complete less than one 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ® No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ® No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ❑ Yes ® No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑ Yes ❑ No e. If yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? —years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑ Yes ® No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑ Yes ® No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑ Yes ® No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity WA gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 0.0 gallons/day. . 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain The project is a demonstration project funded by Long Island Power Authority, a state public authority. 4 25. Approvals Required Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board ❑ Yes ®No City, Town, Village Planning Board ❑ Yes ®No City, Town Zoning Board ❑ Yes 11 No City, County Health Department ❑ Yes ®No Other Local Agencies ® Yes ❑ No Town of Southold Building Summer 2002 Permit (nondiscationary) Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes ®No State Agencies ❑ Yes IN No Federal Agencies ❑ Yes ®No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑ zoning amendment ❑ zoning variance ❑ special use permit ❑ subdivision ❑ site plan ❑ new/revision of master plan ❑ resource management plan ❑ other 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? A-C Agricultural -Conservation 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 20 percent coverage permitted in agricultural conservation zoning. 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No zoning changes are proposed 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? No zoning changes are proposed 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ® Yes ❑ No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a /4 mile radius of proposed action? The prominent land use within 1/4 mile of the site is agricultural and the predominant zoning is agricultural. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a /4 mile? ® Yes ❑ No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? WA a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? WA 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑ Yes ® No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ❑ Yes a No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? WA ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑ Yes ® No a. If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑ Yes ❑ No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Date Signature Title If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 PART 2-PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations I reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State for most situations. But, for any specific project or site, other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriat f a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer 3 question. _ • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. nstructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. �. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. ;. If answering Yes to a question, then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of t impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur threshold is lower than example, check column 1. J. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significai Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 sim asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact, then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PAE f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moder: impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. —1 must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ❑ NO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. • Construction of a designated floodway. Would place wind turbine generator on existing • Other impacts agricultural land. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) ® NO Cl YES • Specific land forms: 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impacts 3 Can Impact E Mitigated By Project Chanc ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ IMPACT ON WATER Small to I Potential Can Impact Be 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Moderate Large Mitigated By (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) Impact Im acts Proiect Chan e ®NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected steam. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. • Construction in a designated freshwater ortidal wetland. • Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non -protected existing or new body of water? ®NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10-acre increase or decease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts. 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ®NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharges into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: 13 E3 Yes [3 No ❑ I ❑ I ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I ❑ I ❑ Yes ❑ No I ❑ 1 ❑ ► ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I ❑ I ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑ Yes ❑ No 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ®NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change floodwater flows. ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ Yes ❑ No 7 • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ®NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS S. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ENO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal or any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non -endangered species? ®NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal or more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? ONO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agriculture' land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 1 Small to Moderate Im act 2 Potential Large Impacts 3 Can Impact I Mitigated B,, Proiect Chan ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑. Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ R r_, 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impacts Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ® NO ❑ YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B. ) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ® NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? ® NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑ Yes. ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 _ IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impacts 3 Can Impact Mitigated By Project Char^e 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? ❑ NO ® YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Site is located within a special groundwater protection area of central Suffolk County (north), which has been designated by the Long Island Regional Planning Dept for groundwater protection. Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N. • Proposed action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N'- ❑ ❑ Cl Yes ❑ N • Other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there bean effect to existing transportation systems? ® NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N- • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N- • Other impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ K IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ❑ NO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N - transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Project would slightly Increase Long Island's ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N _ • Other impacts: electrical generation capacity. 10 NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 1 2 3 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By of the Proposed Action? III NO ❑ YES Impact Impacts Pro'ect Chan e Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No noise screen. - • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ' ® NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may a be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? H NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police and fire, -etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. • Other impacts: ❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ® No ❑ Yes If any action In Part 2 Is Identified as a potential large Impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of Impact, proceed to Part 3. Attachment A: ICoastal Zone Management A. INTRODUCTION The Federal Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972 was established to support and protect the nation's coastal areas and sets forth policies for managing the use of coastal areas. The policies are intended to address local, State, and Federal concerns about the deterioration and inappropriate use of waterfront space. In 1982, New York State adopted its CZM program, which is designed to balance economic development and preservation. It promotes waterfront revitalization and water -dependent uses while protecting fish and wildlife, open space, scenic vistas, and public access to the shoreline. In addition, the policies are intended to minimize adverse impacts to ecological systems and ameliorate erosion and flood hazards. The New York State program provides for local implementation when a municipality adopts a local waterfront revitalization program (LWRP). The CZM program encourages coordination among all levels of government to promote sound waterfront planning and requires consideration of the program's goals in making land use decisions. The New York State Department of State (DOS) administers this program at the State level. COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY The implementation of CZM is effectuated, in part, through Federal and State consistency pro- visions that require direct Federal agency activities or federal funding, or authorized actions to be consistent with the CZM. State agency actions along the State's coastal area are required to be consistent with the State's coastal policies. The State's coastal policies and consistency re- view requirements are outlined in 19 NYCRR Part 600 and 6 NYCRR Part 617; Federal consis- tency regulations are found at 15 CFR Part 930. Article 42 of the Executive Law states that one of the policies of the State is to assure the consis- tency of State actions and, where appropriate, Federal actions, with State coastal policies and LWRP's. It also requires that certain State agency actions within the coastal area be undertaken in a manner consistent with the State's coastal area policies, or a State -approved LWRP. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area involving a State agency's direct action or funding, or requiring State permits for actions involving an EIS under SEQRA, must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Article 42 and 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 or an approved LWRP. Pursuant to Article 42, DOS monitors and advises State agencies regarding the consistency of their actions with the State CZM, State coastal policies, and approved LWRPs. No State agency involved in an action shall carry out, fund, or approve an action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and its implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. For State agency actions, whether a State agency is either a lead or involved agency, if a positive declaration has been made and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required pursuant to A -I LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the draft EIS must contain an identification of the applicable State coastal policies and a discussion of the effects of the pro- posed action on and consistency with such policies. SEQRA regulations provide that no State agency shall make a final decision on the action until it has made a written finding that it is con- sistent with the coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. & METHODOLOGY The proposed program was evaluated for each of the 44 policies in the State's LWRP in addition to the applicable coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. The Peconic site lies within the coastal zone. Many of the policies within these programs do not apply to the proposed project. There are policies that apply in a generic way and are not site specific. There are also policies that are site specific. Provided below is an analysis of the program. Of the 44 policies, the site specific policies including 23, 24 and 26 are assessed in the second chapter. C. ANALYSIS OF WATERFRONT POLICIES Policy 1: Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational, and other compatible uses. No proposed project sites are located on the waterfront. This policy does not apply. Policy 2: Facilitate the siting of water -dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. The proposed facilities are not water -dependent. This policy does not apply. Policy 3: Promote the development and use of the State's major ports as centers of commerce and industry, emphasizing the siting, within port areas of land use and development that is necessary to, or in support of, the waterborne transportation of cargo and people. The State's major ports are the ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg, and Oswego. This policy does not apply. There are no major ports located on Long Island Policy 4: Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those activities that have provided such areas with a unique identity. This policy does not directly apply; however, the proposed project would further the development of the port capabilities by providing energy resources for other industrial and/or commercial uses. Expansion of port -related activities would therefore not be constrained by the availability of electrical power. Policy 5: Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. At each site there is adequate infrastructure to serve the proposed project. No impacts are expected on public facilities or services. Policy 6: Expedite existing permit procedures to facilitate the siting of development activities at suitable locations. This policy is not applicable. No permits are required as a result of the proposed project. A-2 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management Policy 7: Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected and preserved so as to maintain their viability as habitats. The proposed pr0ect would have no effect on the viability of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats'This policy does not apply. Policy 8: Protect fish �ind wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants that bioaccumulate in the food chain or cause significant sublethal or lethal effects on those resources. The proposed project would not result in the release of any hazardous wastes or other pollutants. Therefore, this policy does not apply. Policy 9: Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks, and developing new resources. This policy does not apply. The project is not proposed to enhance or expand recreational fish and wildlife resources. Policy 10: Further develop commercial fmfish, shellfish, and crustacean resources in the coastal areas by encouraging the construction or improvement of existing onshore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the State's seafood products, maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding agriculture facilities. This policy does not apply. The proposed project would not develop commercial fishing facilities. Moreover, the project would not adversely impact finfish, shellfish, or crustacean resources, including those that may be commercially caught or harvested outside the project area. Policy 11: Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. This policy does not apply. None of the proposed facilities would be occupied. In addition, no erosion protection measures are proposed as part of the project. Policy 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize their adverse effects on natural features that protect against flooding and erosion. Because of existing agricultural development and land uses, the project sites do not contain natural features, such as beaches, dunes, barrier islands, or other natural protective features. This policy does not apply. Policy 13: The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least 30 years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs. This policy does not apply. The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures is not proposed. Policy 14: Activities and development including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development at other locations. This policy does not apply. The proposed project does not include the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures. A-3 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Policy 15: Mining, excavation, or dredging in coastal waters shall not significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes that supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner that will not cause an increase in erosion of such lands. This policy does not apply. No mining, excavation, or dredging is proposed that would affect beach materials. - Policy 16: Public funds shall be expended for activities and development, including the construction or reconstruction of erosion structures, only where the public benefits clearly outweigh their long-term monetary and other costs including their adverse effects on natural protective features. This policy does not apply. The proposed project does not include the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures. Policy 17: Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible. This policy does not apply. The proposed project does not include the construction of flood prevention or erosion protection measures. Policy 18: To safeguard the vital interests of the State of New York and of its citizens regarding resources of the State's coastal area, all practicable steps shall be taken to ensure that such interests are accorded full consideration in the deliberations, decisions and actions of State and Federal bodies with authority over those waters and resources. Each of the sites has been evaluated pursuant to SEQRA. As described in each of the site analyses, no adverse impacts are expected from the proposed project. Each of the sites has been examined with respect to the potential for the site to have natural resource issues or regulated tidal wetlands or tidal wetland setback areas. No natural resource impacts are expected at any of the sites. Policy 19: Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to water -related recreation resources. This policy does not apply. The proposed project does not affect level or types of access to water -related recreation resources. Policy 20: Access to the publicly owned foreshore, or water's edge, and to the publicly owned lands immediately adjacent to these areas shall be provided and it shall be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses. To ensure that such lands remain available for public use, they will be retained in public ownership. This policy does not apply. All sites are privately owned lands and are not located on the water's edge. Policy 21: Water -dependent and water -enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority over non -water -related uses along the coast. The proposed project is not located along the waterfront. This policy does not apply. Policy 22: Development when located adjacent to the shore will provide for water -related recreation activities whenever such recreational use is appropriate in light of reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and the primary purpose of the development. A-4 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management The proposed project is not located along the waterfront and therefore not appropriate for water -related recreation. This policy does not apply. Policy 23: Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas, or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archeology, or culture of the State, its communities, or the nation. The proposed project would not adversely affect any structures, site, or districts of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. Each of the sites has been examined for this policy. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 24: Prevent impairment of scenic resources of Statewide significance. As described in the visual character analysis for each site, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on visual character. The proposed structures are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding built environments, which are in all cases agricultural. Therefore the project does not have the potential to affect scenic resources, such as vistas and views. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 25: Protect, restore, and enhance the natural and manmade resources that are not identified as being of Statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. As stated above, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources such as vistas and views. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy 26: Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area. The proposed sites are all agricultural lands which are working farms or vineyards and are therefore consistent with local land use. Because the proposed project sites are 0.02 acres each, it is not expected that the proposed project will significantly impact agricultural lands. The proposed project is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 27: Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location. The proposed project in not considered a major energy facility. This policy is not applicable. Policy 28: Ice management practices shall not damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, increase shoreline erosion or flooding, or interfere with the production of hydroelectric power. The proposed project would not involve ice management practices. This policy is not applicable. Policy 29: Encourage the development of energy resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS) and in other water bodies and ensure the environmental safety of such activities. The proposed project would not involve the development of energy resources. This policy is not applicable. A-5 LIPA Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Policy 30: Municipal, industrial and commercial discharge of pollutants, including, but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to State and National water quality standards. The proposed project would not result in the release of any pollutants. Therefore, this policy does not apply. - Policy 31: State coastal area policies and management objectives of approved local WRPs will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; however, those waters already over -burdened with contaminants will be recognized as being a development constraint. This policy is not applicable. The proposed project does not involve the review of water quality standards or coastal water classifications. Policy 32: Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in smaller communities where the cost of conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base for these communities. There would be no sanitary waste from the proposed project. This policy is not applicable. Policy 33: Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of storm water runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. The proposed project does not involve discharges to coastal waters. This policy does not apply. Policy 34: Discharge of waste material into coastal waters from vessels under the State's jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas, and water supply areas. The proposed project does not involve the discharge of waste materials from vessels. This policy is not applicable. Policy 35: Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, aesthetic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands. This policy does not apply. No dredging or disposal of dredged materials is part of this project. Policy 36: Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or at least minimize spills into coastal waters: all practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur. The proposed project would not involve shipment or storage of petroleum or other hazardous materials. This policy is not applicable. Policy 37: Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non -point discharge of excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. A-6 Attachment A: Coastal Zone Management The proposed project would not involve the discharge of non -point source pollutants or excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. This policy is not applicable. Polley 38: The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies will be conserved and protected particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply. The proposed project does not involve the use or degradation of surface and groundwater. This policy is not applicable. Policy 39: The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands, and scenic resources. The proposed project does not involve the transport, storage, treatment, or disposal of solid wastes. This policy does not apply. Policy 40: Effluent discharged from major steam, electric generating, and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and will conform to State water quality standards. None of these activities are proposed under the proposed project. This policy is not directly applicable. Policy 41: Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause National or State air quality standards to be violated. The proposed project would not cause any violations of air quality standards and is therefore consistent with this policy. Policy 42: Coastal management policies will be considered if the State reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act. The proposed project would not cause reclassification of land areas to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. This policy is not applicable. Policy 43: Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursors: nitrates and sulfates. The proposed drainage plans would not generate acid rain precursors, nitrates, and sulfates. This policy is not applicable. Policy 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. The proposed project sites are not located on tidal or freshwater wetlands. This policy does not apply. A-7 3 f Attachment B Avian Report Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Project, Suffolk County, New York Osprey_Dominion Vineyard Site June 2002 Report Prepared for: AWS Scientific, Inc. — Bruce Bailey, President Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) Report Prepared by: Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 email: okerlingerOaol.com www.currykerlinger.com LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 2 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Project, Suffolk County, New York Osprey Dominion Vineyard Site Executive Summary A wind power project consisting of a single 50-kilowatt wind turbine, has been proposed for an agricultural sites in Suffolk County, New York. The Atlantic Orient Wind turbine is equipped with 25 foot long rotors, mounted on a diagonal lattice tower about 100 feet in height (total height about 125 feet when the rotor is in the 12 o'clock position). Electrical lines would be underground on site and then run above or underground to the nearest transmission lines, which are either on or adjacent to the turbine property. The electricity generated would be the equivalent needed to power about 15 average homes. Ownership of the land is private and is used as a commercial vineyard. Land use would remain virtually unchanged. This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for wind power development. It includes a literature review and site visits by an avian expert on May 16, 2002. Together, these sources of information provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use a project site and the area surrounding that site. This information is then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any, from wind power development at a particular site. In addition, the concerns of regulators and environmental organizations were determined and incorporated into the risk assessment. The Osprey Dominion Vineyard site is one of several sites that have been considered by LIPA for wind power development. A brief description of the site follows. The number following the site name is the reference number used by LIPA during the screening process. ➢ Osprey Dominion Vineyards - #1 (41°02.7'N 72027.076'W) — turbine would be located within a grape field 200+ feet from a tree/hedge row. A small wetland exists more than 250 feet from the turbine location, although there is no open water within this distance. There are no significant habitats for birds within hundreds of yards of the turbine site. The Osprey Dominion Vineyard is used for growing grapes and for winemaking. The turbine site is not sensitive habitat, nor is it habitat where birds normally nest. The small, semi - wooded wetland that is within 100 feet of the edge of Osprey Dominion Vineyards, is the closest wetland or sensitive habitat to the turbine location. Activity at the site is considerable including heavy farm equipment, earth moving equipment, trucks, and field workers attending to the grape vines. Nothing in the literature or from what was observed on the site indicated that it was an important nesting or foraging area for birds including federally or state listed or sensitive (species of concern) species. There are no known hawk migration pathways or lookouts on or Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger within many miles of the project site. Small numbers of songbirds and other species are likely to migrate over the project site. The site is not known to be significant wintering sites for birds, so relatively few birds are likely to use the site between mid -November and mid -March. In addition, there was no evidence that the project site or lands adjacent to the site would attract significant concentrations of migrating or wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, hawks, or other species. The site visit revealed no evidence of endangered or threatened species (federal or state) presence on or use of the site and the habitats did not appear to be suitable for such species. Birds observed during the site visit indicated that the species most likely to be present and use the sites are common birds of farmland, brushland, residential areas. Raptors that may frequent the site and nest nearby are primarily Red-tailed Hawk and American Kestrels, although Northern Harrier and possibly Rough -legged Hawks may be present at times. Ospreys nest within a mile. Herons and egrets may fly near or over the site as they move between foraging sites. Use of the site by all but a few common songbirds is very low. A review of the available literature on wind turbine impacts on birds did not reveal evidence that would suggest that small, single -turbine projects like the one proposed for Osprey Dominion Vineyard pose any risk to birds. Studies have shown that there is little to no impact at sites with small numbers of turbines, especially if they are situated in agricultural fields. No records of fatalities at small turbines, like the 50-kilowatt Atlantic Orient Windpower machines, could be found in the literature. Similarly, free-standing (unguyed) communication towers have almost never been implicated in avian collision fatalities. Because the current project would consist of a single, small turbine and situated in an area where bird use is likely to be low, it is highly improbable that the project would pose a significant risk (perhaps no risk) to birds. From this Phase I Avian Risk Assessment there is also no indication that further study is needed prior to construction of the project. To insure that other potential risks are minimal, the following recommendations are made: ➢ Meteorology towers should be free standing (without guy wires). Such towers with guy wires have been shown to incur many times more fatalities than wind turbines. ➢ All electrical wires should be underground. If portions of such wires are above ground, APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee) guidelines should be followed to avoid the chance of avian electrocutions. ➢ If lighting is recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, light color and blink rate specifications should be done according to best practices (least attractive to birds) according to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 4 Introduction A small wind power project has been proposed for a site in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York (Figure 1). Because birds have been impacted at a few, older wind power sites in the United States and Europe, concern for their well-being has been raised as an issue at most proposed wind power facilities. The impacts on birds include fatalities resulting from collisions with operating turbines and habitat modification/disturbance as a result of construction activities and new infrastructure at a particular site. Impacts have been reported at modem wind power facilities, but they have not been deemed significant from a population perspective. That impacts have occurred at some sites suggests that these impacts are associated with site -specific attributes. This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment contracted for the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) Farm Bureau wind power project. The purpose of a Phase I Assessment is to determine the potential risks to birds at a proposed wind power project site. Thus, the Phase I Assessment is designed to guide developers, regulators, environmentalists, and other stakeholders through the process of determining the degree of risk at a particular site and how impacts or potential impacts, if any are perceived, need to be studied in more detail. The initial assessment includes a site visit and a literature search. The site visit is made by a trained avian ecologist (Paul Kerlinger) with extensive experience in wind power development. The site and surrounding area are walked and toured by automobile. During the visit, habitat and topography are examined and the avifauna present is observed. The site visit is not meant to be a quantitative survey or inventory of birds on the site and surrounding area. Instead, the purpose of the site visit is to gain an understanding of the habitat and topographic features so that a list of species that might be present may be assembled and the potential for risk to those birds evaluated. The literature search includes examination of pertinent materials including Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, hawk migration literature/newsletters, New York Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA), USGS Breeding Bird Surveys, Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA), Important Bird Areas (IBA) projects, and other sources of information on birds that might nest, migrate through, forage on, winter on, or concentrate at the site. Information from these diverse sources are then integrated into a report like the one that follows, summarizing what is present at a site, potential risk of wind turbine construction at the site, a comparison of risk at the site with other sites where risk has been determined empirically, and suggestions for further studies, if indicated. Proiect Description. The LIPA Farm Bureau wind energy project at Osprey Dominion Vineyard would consist of one, 50 kilowatt Atlantic Orient Windpower wind turbine generator, east of the town of Riverhead. The single wind turbines would produce a total of 50 kilowatts of generating capacity. The tower will be diagonal lattice structure about 100 feet in height, with rotor lengths of about 25 feet. The footprint of the wind turbine is limited to an area of less than 35 x 35 feet Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 5 within which the tower base would be located. A majority of the electrical transmission lines within the project sites will be underground. Ownership of the land is private. Topographic/Physiographic and Habitat Description of the LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Osprey Dominion Vineyard Project Site — Site Visit and Birds Observed Information regarding topography, physiography, and habitat of the sites was first gathered using a 1:24,000 USGS topographic map, and later from ground truthing via site visits (described below). In addition, several texts were examined to determine the type of habitat known to be present in the general vicinity of the proposed wind turbines and, therefore, the bird communities and species that are likely to be present (Andrle and Carroll 1988, Levine 1998, Wells 1998). Suffolk County, including the project site, is in the Coastal Lowlands ecological zone (Andrle and Carroll 1988, Levine 1998). There are no mountains or valleys and the land is virtually flat on and near the project sites. The small bills that are present nearby are seldom more than 50 feet higher or lower than the actual project site. The elevations of the project site is between about 50 feet ASL. The area is heavily settled with housing developments, small estates, and agriculture. There are also small towns, shopping centers, and a larger town (Riverhead) nearby. The project site is uplands. There is a small wetland nearby. The historically dominant habitat of this portion of Suffolk County was scrub oak and oak forest with some pitch pine. The Long Island pine barrens are a short distance away. Today, the area consists of less than about 25% forest, by area (from Remote Sensing Laboratory, New York State Forest Cover Map, Department of Geography, University at Albany), although the area varies greatly in forest cover from place to place. Forests are a patchwork of small tracts and hedgerows. Agriculture and housing are the main land -uses in this portion of Suffolk County. The type of agriculture at the site is for growing grapes and is, therefore, a vineyard. The LIPA Farm Bureau project site was visited on May 16, 2002. In addition to walking and driving around the project site during the site visit, the area for about a mile surrounding the sites were toured. Roads transect the area and the project is fairly open with respect to vegetation, which made all habitat visible with ease. During the visit, an effort was made to observe the bud life and habitat on and adjacent to the site, and determine what birds or ornithological phenomena might be present on site or nearby. The weather during the site visit was fair, with moderate to light winds and mild temperatures (70s°F), permitting excellent views of the habitat and birds on and adjacent to the project site. Habitat information was gathered by examining the vegetation, topography, and hydrology. The vegetation included trees, shrubs, and, to a lesser extent, the herb layer on the project site and surrounding lands. This section of the report details habitat and topography as they relate to bird presence and activity. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger ➢ Osprey Dominion Vineyards - #1 (41002.7'N 72027.076'W) — The turbine would be located near the edge of a grape field about 100-150 feet from a tree/hedge row. This vineyard has been producing for many years and the vines are mature. The vegetation at the project footprint is mowed grass and grape vines on a trellis -like structure. The habitat cannot be construed as wildlife habitat and certainly is not suitable for any rare or sensitive species. A small wetland, a stream with wet areas adjacent to it, exists about 200+ feet from the turbine location, although there is no open water for a greater distance. There is a treed buffer between the turbine location and the wetlands that consists of mostly upland species adjacent to the field and some wetlands species in the wetlands per se. Wetlands vegetation that is visible from the edge of the tree row includes Phragmites and willows (species?). Upland trees included black cherry, locust, a cultivated cherry, eastern red cedar, box elder, sumac, and Norway maple, all of which indicate a disturbed area (some species are non-native) or a forest in early stages of succession. Brushy and herbaceous species included poison ivy, multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper, and vetch, among others. There are no significant habitats for birds within hundreds of yards of the turbine site. The field beyond the wetland/hedge row was cultivated, offering little wildlife habitat. Vineyard buildings and barns/sheds were located near the project footprint and a dirt road separated the vineyard fields from the hedge -tree row. A major road, Highway 25, runs by the project site and large transmission lines are visible in the distance. There were two communication towers within about one-half mile of the project footprint and transmission lines for the project's power are just off site. A sodfarm was located immediately adjacent to the corn field in which the turbine would be located. Birds observed on site included Herring Gull, Red-tailed Hawk, Rock Dove, Mourning Dove, American Crow, American Robin, Eastern Kingbird, European Starling, Gray Catbird, Northern Mockingbird, Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Northern Cardinal, Brown - headed Cowbird, Red -winged Blackbird, Baltimore Oriole, and House Sparrow. During the site visit we were told that an Osprey nest occurs about a mile away from the site and that herons and egrets fly through the site from time to time. The wetlands are too small and isolated to support shorebirds, although individual herons or egrets (Great Blue Heron is likely), ducks (most likely Mallard), and a few other birds that are attracted to wetlands will be present at times. The type of habitat on site and its dissected and disturbed nature on and immediately adjacent to the project site suggests strongly that the site is not suitable for most species of special concern, threatened, or endangered species. Species that nest on and adjacent to the site are primarily common species of forest edge, brush, and, to a lesser degree oldfield and grassland. Forests adjacent to the site are small and it is improbable that they support the more uncommon Neotropical migrant species of songbirds or sensitive interior forest nesting birds. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 7 Avian Overview (Literature Review and Habitat Assessment) Nesting Birds New York State has a list of endangered and threatened species, as well as a list of species of special concern (Table 1). Species that are extinct were excluded from the analyses that follow. Several data sets and information sources were used to determine the presence of listed species, species of special concern, and others that might nest at or near the LIPA project site. These included USGS Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS), New York State Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA), New York State Important Bird Area program, and the habitat evaluation made during the site visits. Detection of any listed species or species of concern from these information sources would signal their potential presence on or near the proposed wind power site. USGS Breeding Bird Survey routes were not available from eastern Long Island so this database could not be used. The BBA project surveyed virtually all "blocks" within Suffolk County. Such complete coverage provides a high level of confidence as to what species nest in the county. The Atlas was conducted over a period of six years (1980—1985). A total of 5,323 (of 5,335) blocks were surveyed statewide or 99.8 percent of the state (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Thus, most of Suffolk County was included in the BBA blocks, including the project site. The BBA (Andrle and Carroll 1988) revealed that the vast majority of bird species that nest in terrestrial habitats of the area surrounding the project sites are common birds of forest, edge, and brush habitats. A few grassland nesting species were also found to be present in the general area. Those species that are listed in Table 1 are not likely to be nesting on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Most were not found within the atlas blocks near or in which the project site is located. Furthermore, those listed species that were found in atlas blocks at or close to the project site are mostly aquatic or marine species that nest colonially adjacent to marshes or on beaches. The habitat on the project site is not suitable for nesting by any of the species in Table 1. Habitat on and adjacent to the project sites is suitable for some raptors. Most common would be Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and perhaps Cooper's Hawk. Farther away, Osprey and, to a lesser degree, Northern Harrier may be present. On Long Island these latter two species are usually associated with tidal marshes and ocean/sound/bays. Ospreys are likely to fly over the site. What these information sources demonstrate is that most of the species that are likely to be found on the project site are common species of brush and forest edge. Most importantly, the project site and habitats immediately adjacent to the site are not sensitive avian habitat nor are they suitable for listed species or species of special concern. Curry & KerUnger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Table 1. Birds of New York State that are endangered, threatened, or species of special concern (NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Program; Federally listed species are also included as indicated). Also noted was whether the habitat at the project site or immediately surrounding the site (within 200 m) was suitable (S), marginally suitable as indicated (MS), or not suitable (NS) for that species. A question mark indicates that a definitive determination was not possible or there was uncertainty in the evaluation. Endaneered/Threatened Species Status - Suitability of Project Site Habitat Pied -billed Grebe Threatened - NS Least Bittern Threatened - NS Bald Eagle Threatened - NS (Federally Threatened — Proposed for delisting) Northern Harrier Threatened - NS Golden Eagle (extirpated) Endangered - NS Peregrine Falcon Endangered - NS Spruce Grouse Endangered - NS King Rail Threatened - NS Black Rail Endangered - NS Upland Sandpiper Threatened - NS Piping Plover Endangered (Federally Endangered Great Lakes, Threatened on Atlantic Coast) - NS Common Tern Threatened - NS Roseate Tern Endangered - NS (Federally Endangered) Black Tern Endangered - NS Least Tern Threatened — NS (Federally Endangered) Short -eared Owl Endangered - NS Loggerhead Shrike Endangered - NS Sedge Wren Threatened - NS Henslow's Sparrow Threatened - NS Species of Special Concern Common Loon NS American Bittem NS Osprey NS Sharp -shinned Hawk MS (foraging only) Cooper's Hawk MS (foraging only) Northern Goshawk NS Red -shouldered Hawk NS Black Skimmer NS Common Nighthawk MS? (foraging only) Whip -poor -will NS Red-headed Woodpecker NS Homed Lark NS Curry & Kerhnger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 0 Sedge Wren NS Bicknell's Thrush NS Golden -winged Warbler NS Cerulean Warbler NS Yellow -breasted Chat NS Vesper Sparrow _ NS Grasshopper Sparrow NS Seaside Sparrow NS Migrating Birds The eastern tip and southern shore of Long Island host enormous bird migrations in autumn and, to a lesser extent spring. Much of this migration occurs at or near the shore, as well as in tidal wetlands, and over the ocean. Relatively little is associated with upland areas, especially locations with habitat like that found at the project site. Loons, seabirds, waterfowl, other waterbirds, shorebirds, terns and gulls, and songbirds are known to migrate through the area in very large numbers during autumn. A small migration of hawks is also known, especially through the coastal areas. The LIPA project site at the Osprey Dominion Vineyard is uplands and, therefore, not suitable to any of the species listed above that are dependent on water or wetlands. Whereas some of the uplands of eastern Long Island are suitable for songbird migrants, it should be noted that the geographic location and topography of the LIPA project site is not special and it is highly unlikely that there is a concentration of night migrating songbirds at the site. Furthermore, although the habitat at the project site is not really suitable for migratory stopovers of these species, although they certainly will be found spread throughout the area in which the turbine site would be located. There is ample habitat surrounding the project site that is much higher quality and more attractive to these migrants. Hawk migration pathways and flyways in New York State have been well documented during the past 40 to 50 years (Heintzelman 1975, 1986, HMANA Newsletters). Each year thousands of people watch migrating hawks at a dozens of sites in New York State. From the early 1960s through the 1990s, hawkwatchers searched for the best locations to observe migrating hawks. It is probable that all of the localities where large numbers of hawks occur during migration have been identified. Despite the large number of hawk watchers and hawk watching sites, there are fewer than a dozen high quality hawk watching sites in the state. In general, the best hawk watching is either in the far southeastern comer of the state in the lower Hudson Valley and on Long Island or along the southern shore of Lake Ontario (Derby Hill, Braddock Bay) and Lake Erie (Ripley; Zalles and Bildstein 2000, Heintzelman 1975, 1986). Zalles and Bildstein (2000) in their compendium of significant hawk migration sites do not list any location within about 10 miles of the project site. On Long Island, the best sites include Montauk Point, Fire Island, Breezy Point, and to a lesser extent there is some hawk migration at Orient Point. Orient Point is the nearest to the Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 10 project site with a significant hawk migration. Away from the shore on Long Island there are no known migration concentration sites. It is unlikely that the flat topography and agricultural situation at the project site would attract raptors during autumn migration, although a few individuals may forage on or adjacent to the site after or before their daily migratory flights (Kerlinger 1989). Wintering Birds The winter climate on eastern Long Island is harsh, lasting from November through mid - March. The project site is subject to moderate to strong winds, relatively low temperatures, and some snowfall. These attributes combine to make the area relatively inhospitable to birds during the winter. Such harsh weather necessitates high caloric intake for avian survival. However, the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound, and Peconic Bay has a moderating effect on the weather on eastern Long Island and waterbirds — especially those associated with salt water (both open water and tidal marshes), are present in very large numbers in some places. Land birds are not uncommon throughout the general area, but their distribution varies greatly and is keyed to habitat. The primary sources of information on birds wintering in and around areas like the LIPA Farm Bureau project sites are National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs). CBCs from 1991/1992 through 2000/2001 were examined from three counts (Orient — centered at the northern tip of Shelter Island; Quogue-Watermill — centered about 2 miles northeast of the navigation beacon at Shinnecock Inlet; and Sagoponack — centered at Georgia Pond Inlet). Each of these Christmas Counts included the area within a 15 mile (24 km) diameter circle, an area of about 177 square miles (453 square km). Thus, the three sites together covered a total area of 531 square miles (1,359 square km). A total of 124 people were involved in searching for birds in this area during the 2000-2001 CBC. Christmas Counts provide an excellent overview of the birds that inhabit an area during winter. Each winter within about 10 days of Christmas, dozens of birders comb their local CBC area counting all birds encountered. These birders search during the day and to a lesser extent at night, in the entire area encompassed within a particular count area. In addition, they scout for birds during that season, especially during the 'count week" period, to prepare for the actual count day. Although most of these birders are unpaid amateurs who are usually proficient or highly skilled observers. The CBC count data are used for various types of conservation purposes including population tracking and determining geographic range and abundance of species by various environmental groups and government wildlife agencies. In the analyses that follow, all birds seen on the counts and during count weeks were included. The most recent ten- year period for these counts was examined. A majority of the birds reported on the five Christmas Bird Count data sets were common species. A large number of species were associated with water or wetlands including waterfowl, seabirds, and other species that are found at or near the intertidal zone (including tidal marshes, backbays, etc.). Of these species, only the upland species are likely to be found on the project site during winter, although very small numbers waterbirds may fly over or near the site. The Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 11 reason for this is that the project site is well away from marine habitats. Several listed species (endangered, threatened, and species of special concern in New York State) were found on the three CBCs listed above. However, these species were mostly migrants from other states (or Canada) where they are not listed, or they are associated with water or marine habitats. The species that are likely to be found at the project site are the same as those found around residences, farmyards, forest edges, brushland, and open fields/grasslands. The species included on the CBCs that will be found in habitats like those at the project site are common species and none can be construed as being sensitive or appear in the lists in Table 1. Raptor species that were present on the CBCs that will also be present on the project site on a somewhat regular basis include Red-tailed Hawks. To a lesser extent American Kestrels will be present as well as smaller numbers of Rough -legged Hawks and Northern Harriers. Their presence will vary from year to year depending upon snow cover and prey availability such that in years with heavy snow or low prey availability, few raptors will be present. If there are years with microtine population explosions (sometimes occurring every 3-5 years depending on habitat and other unknown circumstances), more raptors will be attracted to the project site. In summary, several species that are listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern are usually present during winter on eastern Long Island, as documented by CBCs. The habitat requirements of these species do not include the types of habitat that are present on the LIPA wind turbine project site at Osprey Dominion Vineyard. Important Bird Areas, Parks, Nature Preserves, Sanctuaries, and Sensitive Habitats Near the LIPA — Farm Bureau Wind Power Project, Suffolk County, NewYork Important Bird Areas. The Long Islands Pine Barrens and Peconic Bay/Flanders Bay are the nearest designated IBAs to the project site. The project sites more than 3 miles (4.8 km) from this IBA. Drennan in her 1980 volume/directory of important birding sites in New York State does not list any sites within two or three miles (3.2-4.8 km) of the project sites. Nature Conservancy Properties. There are no TNC holdings within 5 miles of the project site. National Parks Wildlife Refuges, and Forests. There are no national parks, wildlife refuges, or forests within 3 miles (4.8 km) of the project sites. New York State Parks. There are no New York State Parks within several miles of the project site. State Game/Wildlife Management Areas. The project site is not within one mile of any state game or wildlife management area. Watchable Wildlife Viewing Areas. There are no officially designated Wildlife Viewing Areas within 5 miles of the project site (Knight and Wilson 1998). Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 12 Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Avian Risk at the LIPA — Farm Bureau Osprey Dominion VineyardWind Power Project Site, Long Island, New York, With Existing Wind Power Facilities Perhaps the best means of assessing risk to birds at proposed wind power project sites, is to compare the avifauna, geographic setting, habitat, and topographic conditions found at that site with locations where varying degrees of risk are known and have been documented empirically. By comparing the species present, numbers of individuals of those species, seasonal presence, and behavior of birds that are likely to nest on or use (migrate or forage on) the LIPA — Farm Bureau Wind Power Project site in different seasons with wind power facilities that have documented risk or lack of risk, an educated assessment can be made as to the overall risk to birds that can be anticipated at the LIPA project site resulting from the development of a single wind turbine. Reviewing what is known about avian impacts, two types of negative impacts have been documented at wind power sites: habitat alteration (disturbance/avoidance) and collision fatalities. Habitat alteration with resulting impact on birds is not well known or documented. Few studies have addressed this problem because habitat alteration is not often construed as a legal issue, except in the case of federally endangered and threatened species or some state listed species. The issue of disturbance includes both short-term disturbance during actual construction and longer term disturbance from infrastructure and habitat alteration following construction. With respect to the LIPA Osprey Dominion Vineyard wind power project site, construction activities associated with the erection of the turbines are likely to require less than two months, after which, land use and human presence will return to pre -construction levels. Some maintenance is required at wind turbines, but visits from maintenance crews are usually limited to two or three visits per year, requiring only a few hours of time on site. It should be emphasized that the sites currently host almost constant human activity with workers, tractors, trucks, sprayers, sprinklers, and other equipment operating on a daily basis. Thus, construction activities are ephemeral and limited to the project footprint and the area immediately surrounding that footprint. Longer -term habitat disturbance resulting from presence of infrastructure has been studied at only a few locations. In a study done in southwestem Minnesota at a large wind power plant, reduced nesting activity of songbirds was detected in grazed areas and farm fields close to wind turbines as opposed to farther from those turbines (Leddy et al. 1999). For this reason, researchers recommended the placement of wind turbines on tilled agricultural lands such as com, soy beans, and other types of intensive agriculture. European studies have shown similar impacts in grassland habitats, with some species showing avoidance of up to 200+ meters from large, modem wind turbines. Other studies showed habituation by some species. A study by Kerlinger (2001a) at turbines placed in a forested hilltop in Vermont suggested that some species habituated to the turbines while other species moved farther into the forest. The latter species tended to be those that are most sensitive to the creation of forest edges. In the APWRA of California, where there are thousands of turbines, raptors, songbirds, and other species have habituated to the presence of turbines and now perch on them, feed amongst them, and even nest Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 13 on them (personal observations of Kerlinger, and Orloff' and Flannery 1992). Overall, some species do habituate to the presence of turbines whereas others do not. It is likely that species that are habitat specialists who need vast open spaces or very large tracts of forest, or species that spend little time around human development are likely to be most susceptible to disturbance. Regarding habitat alteration and destruction, the impact from the wind turbines and other infrastructure at the LIPA site, disturbance is likely to be minimal and not significant. First, there would be only one turbine and its footprint would be small. There will be virtually no road development and the electrical lines would be underground. Second, the species present are not sensitive and they are used to foraging and nesting near human structures. Collision fatalities are the second type of impact and have been studied at more than a dozen wind power sites in the United States. The numbers of fatalities involved at a given wind power site is usually small and have not negatively impacted populations of any species. A summary of fatalities documented at wind plants in the United States is presented in Appendix I. An example of a potentially significant adverse impact of wind power on birds is the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area of California (APWRA), where raptors are known to collide with revolving turbine rotors (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996, Curry and Kerlinger 1997). The Altamont seems to be an anomaly because no other site has been found to impact large numbers of raptors or other birds. The only wind power site in the United States where risk to birds has been documented to be significant is the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area of California, where raptor fatalities have been reported for more than a decade. Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and some other birds collide with turbines in varying numbers in the APWRA. Raptors seem to be the most susceptible group of birds. Large numbers of gulls, ravens, vultures, and other birds fly amongst the turbines and almost never collide with them. The situation with respect to raptor impact in the APWRA is now accepted by most experts to be an anomaly. At the other end of the spectrum from the Altamont are most other wind power sites in the United States, Canada, and Europe. In the western United States the avian mortality resulting from collisions with wind turbines has been studied at several sites. For example, the number of fatalities recently reported from the San Gorgonio Pass and Tehachapi Mountains of California (Anderson et al. 2001), where there are more than 8,000 turbines, is relatively small involving several dozen individuals of more than a dozen species spread over two years. After 3 years of searches at 29 new turbines (now 44) in a prairie situation in northern Colorado, collisions reported in more than 50 total surveys have amounted to fewer than 20 birds including Homed Larks, McCown's Longspur, White -throated Swifts, and American Kestrel (Kerlinger, Curry and Ryder study in progress). At a new wind power site in Oregon, at which there are 38 turbines in farmland, a year -long study documented no raptor fatalities, 8 songbird fatalities, and 4 game bird fatalities (3 of which were alien species). At the Foote Creek Rim, Arlington, Wyoming project about 50 avian fatalities from 15 or more species were identified in a year of study, including 3 raptors. Most of these projects have been situated in agricultural fields or grazing lands and only small numbers of fatalities have been documented. There has been no suggestion of population impacts at any of these facilities, nor have fatalities involved endangered or threatened species. Curry & Kerhnger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA - Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 14 Studies done in the Midwest in farmed areas also revealed very few avian fatalities. At the Buffalo Ridge wind power facility near Lake Benton, Minnesota, small numbers of fatalities have been reported by researchers (Strickland et al. 2001). Relatively few fatalities have resulted from the more than 100 wind turbines searched at this site. The species composition included a variety of birds, but did not include raptors or significant numbers of migrating songbirds. A one-year study of a wind power facility on the Door County peninsula of Wisconsin revealed only three songbird fatalities under 35 turbines situated in farm fields. In the eastern United States, studies have been conducted at small wind plants in Vermont (Kerlinger 2001a), Pennsylvania (Kerlinger 2001b), New York (Cooper et al. 1995), Massachusetts, and Tennessee (Nicholson 2001 - unpublished report) revealed very few fatalities. None were found in Vermont New York, and Pennsylvania where there were 11, 2, and 8 turbines respectively. About a dozen fatalities were noted at three turbines in Tennessee and 4 or 5 were found at 7 turbines in Madison, New York (Kerlinger study in progress; 1 Golden -crowned Kinglet and an unidentified songbird in 12 months of searches). Fatalities at wind power facilities do not compare in numbers with those found at communication towers, highways, transmission lines, and other sources (Erickson et al. 2001). Communication towers are responsible for between 4 and 10 million fatalities per year and roads and transmission lines together account for more than 100 million collision deaths (Erickson et al. 2001). Erickson and others also have demonstrated that fatalities at modern wind plants are also not nearly as numerous as those reported from the Altamont. In addition, the fatalities at other sites rarely involve raptors and a total of about 7 raptors have been found at wind turbine facilities outside of California. Most often, the small numbers of fatalities are spread among a variety of bird species such that only small numbers of a given species are involved. From the recent studies it is obvious that avian fatalities at wind turbine sites are rare events and, to date, no population impacts have been demonstrated to result from collisions with wind turbines and no federally endangered or threatened species have been killed. In Europe, avian fatality has not been shown to be significant at wind power plants, although in a few localities small numbers of fatalities have been reported. In coastal Netherlands at a wind power site where there are about 18 turbines, several dozen songbirds and shorebirds of a variety of species were killed (Winkelman 1995). This site was adjacent to the North Sea, where migration is concentrated into a relatively small area. That several species were involved is important because th fatalities were spread among species all but eliminating the possibility of impacts to populations. At a large wind power facility in Tarifa, Spain, where one of the largest concentrations of migrating raptors and land birds occurs (Straits of Gibraltar), fatalities of migrants have been rare (Montes Marti and Jaque 1995, Janss 2001). Local Griffon Vultures are killed on occasion, apparently because they habituate to the turbines and forage amongst them constantly. Several factors are believed to contribute to avian risk in the Altamont. They are: an extraordinarily large number of operating turbines (N=5,400, reduced from about 7,000 several years ago); closely spaced turbines (<100 feet - 32 m) that may not permit birds to fly between them safely; the presence of very large numbers of foraging raptors; year-round raptor use; Curry & Kerlinger, LLC - June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 15 enormous populations of California ground squirrels (which attract the raptors); a very hilly topography with turbines placed in valleys and along canyon edges; turbines mounted on lattice type towers that permit perching and provide shade and cover from the sun and rain; and turbines blades that rotate at high revolutions per minute (45-72 rpm). These factors have been hypothesized by various researchers to act alone or in concert to influence collision mortality in the AWRA (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996, Kerlinger and Curry 1997, Curry and Kerlinger 2001). _ Comparing the project at LIPA Farm Bureau Project at the Osprey Dominion Vineyard with the projects listed in Appendix I and with suspected risk factors is of heuristic value. Such a comparison (Table 2) reveals that virtually none of the factors known or suspected to cause mortalities are present at the LIPA project site. Most importantly, there will be only one turbine at the site as opposed to thousands of turbines in the APWRA. Note that at the small wind power sites (less than 10 turbines) there are virtually no fatalities reported and even at the moderate sized projects with dozens to hundreds of turbines the fatalities are small in number. The one potential high risk factor is the rotation rate of the small, Atlantic Orient Windpower turbine. The fast rotational rate of turbines in the APWRA is suspected of being more risky than the slower rotational rate of large, modem turbines. The Atlantic Orient turbine has a similar, rapid rotation rate. It is likely that this risk factor is outweighed by the lack of other risk factors associated with the equipment planned for the LIPA project and the site itself. These include low avian use, absence of sensitive species from the site, the fact that the turbine will not be spaced closely, a paucity of prey to attract raptors, and the fact that the turbine is difficult for birds to perch on. It should further be noted that the site is frequently occupied by workers and machinery such that human disturbance discourages activity of raptors and other potentially sensitive species. Table 2. Comparison of known or suspected risk factors at wind power facilities compared to the LIPA — Farm Bureau Osprey Dominion Vineyard Wind Turbine project site, Suffolk County, New York. Known or Suspected Risk Factors - California 1. Large numbers of turbines 1,000s 2. Lattice (horizontal) towers - perching raptors 3. Rotor Swept Area = 3. Fast Rotating Turbine Blades - 50-70+ rpm 4. Closely Spaced Turbines - 80-100 feet 5. Turbines in Steep Valleys/Canyons Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Farm Bureau Proiect 1 turbine Lattice (diagonal) towers — perching difficult Fast Rotating Blades <40 rpm No spacing — single turbines Turbines on Flat Terrain LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 16 6. Large Prey Base - Attract Raptors No Significant Prey Base 7. Raptor Use of Area High Raptor Use of Area Low 8. Year-round raptor/bird use high Seasonal bird use low in winter The issue of night migrating song and other birds colliding with turbines and communication towers should also be considered when assessing risk. None of the studies listed in Appendix I report more than a few night migrants colliding with wind turbines and some report no collisions. The incidents involve mostly single birds, unlike the catastrophic events that can occur at communications towers; the total number of nocturnal migrants that have been reported at several thousand wind turbines number slightly more than 100. It is likely that the actual number per year is in the thousands because scavengers remove carcasses and observers are not 100% efficient when searching for carcasses. The reason so few nocturnal migrants collide with wind turbines as opposed to communications towers is related to the shorter height of wind turbines and their lack of guy wires. A majority of migrants fly between 300 and 2,500 feet (91-915 m) above the ground (Kerlinger 1995, Kerlinger and Moore 1989), with small numbers flying above 5,000 feet (1,524 m). These altitudes are far higher than the 125 foot height of the tower and rotors. Except for landing and taking off, small numbers migrants are below about 500-600 feet (152-183 m). Mean hourly altitudes usually exceed 1,200 to 1,500 feet (366-457 m). The communication towers that are responsible for a vast majority of avian fatalities are taller than 500 feet (153 m) and have lights and guy wires. Turbines rarely exceed 300 feet (from literature and recent unpublished studies) and the LIPA turbines will be only 125 feet in height. The most recent literature surveys conducted by U. S. Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Department of Energy (Trapp 1998, Kerlinger 2000, Kerlinger in press) reveal virtually no mass mortality events at communication towers less than 500 feet (153 m) in height. The fact that there are no guy wires or lights on the Atlantic Orient turbines that would be used by LIPA, is also important, because it is the guy wires of communication towers that account for most of the collisions at communication towers and it is the lights that attract the birds (under conditions of poor visibility). Thus, it is unlikely that the turbine at the LIPA project will incur large numbers of fatalities of night migrating birds (perhaps none). Overall, the information currently available and contained in this report is sufficient to evaluate potential risk to birds at the LIPA - Farm Bureau Osprey Dominion Vineyard project site. The paucity of known and suspected risk factors at this project site, combined with what was learned about the bird life of the project site and surrounding area suggests minimal risk to birds. Several recommendations are made below that will further reduce potential risk to birds. [Note: A review of the literature revealed no collision fatalities of birds at Atlantic Orient or similar sized wind turbines. It is likely that individual mortalities have occurred, but that the numbers were so small as to go undetected or were judged to be unimportant. As with wind turbines and communication towers, collision fatalities were first noted by accident, not as a Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 17 result of concerted studies. Thus, it is likely that if large numbers of fatalities were occurring at these turbines, they would have been noticed and reported.] Recommendations: ➢ Meteorology towers should be free standing (without guy wires). Such towers with guy wires have been shown to incur many times more fatalities than wind turbines. ➢ All electrical wires should be underground. If portions of such wires are above ground, APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee) guidelines should be followed to avoid the chance of avian electrocutions. ➢ If lighting is recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, light color and blink rate specifications should be done according to best practices (least attractive to birds). Curry & Ker, inger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 18 Summary and Conclusions The habitat and topography present at the LIPA — Farm Bureau wind turbine site at Osprey Dominion Vineyard in Suffolk County, New York, as well as available literature and databases lead to the following: 1. The LIPA Farm Bureau site is a vineyard) and, therefore, not sensitive habitat, nor is the habitat suitable for rare, threatened or endangered species. There do not seem to be wetlands within the turbine area footprint or within hundreds of feet of the footprint. 2. The LIPA Farm Bureau Wind Power project site supports a few common nesting bird species, although other species nest near these site and forage on these site. Red-tailed Hawks nest near the site as do Osprey and some heron and egret species. 3. The closest Important Bird Area (Long Island Pine Barrens) is located more than about 5 miles (8 km) from the project site. 4. Significant hawk, songbird, waterfowl, shorebird, or other migration is not known to occur over the project footprint or immediately adjacent lands and the habitat on -site suggests no major concentrations of birds (shorebirds, waterfowl/water birds, raptors, songbirds) stopping over during migration. 5. Few birds will be found on site from November through March because of harsh weather, resulting in little risk for one-third of the year. 6. The fact that a single turbine is proposed and that it is very small in size suggests no significant risk to birds. 7. Several recommendations were made to minimize risk to birds. Conclusion: Based on the findings provided above, the LIPA - Farm Bureau Wind Power Project at Osprey Dominion Vineyard in Suffolk County, New York, is likely to pose no significant adverse risk to birds. The present study revealed nothing that indicated the need for further investigation at the project site. Several recommendations were made to minimize potential risk to birds at the facility. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC - June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 19 References* Anderson, R. 1998. California Energy Markets, Jan. 23, 1998, No. 448:13. Anderson, R. et al. 2001. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at Tehachapi and San Gorgonio, WRAS. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop III, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc. Andrle, R. F., and J. B. Carroll. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York state. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Christmas Bird Counts 1991-2000/2001. National Audubon Society. American Birds. Curry, R., and P. Kerlinger. In press. The Altamont Avian Plan. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop III, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc. Cooper, B.A., C.B. Johnson, and R.J. Ritchie. 1995. Bird migration near existing and proposed wind turbine sites in the eastern Lake Ontario region. Report to Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Syracuse, NY. Drennan, S. R. 1981. Where to find birds in New York state: The top 500 sites. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY. Heintzelman, D.S. 1975. Autumn hawk flights, the migrations in eastern North America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. pp. 398. Heintzelman, D.S. 1986. The migrations of hawks. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. 369 pp. HMANA, Hawk Migration Studies (The Journal of the Hawk Migration Association of North America). 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. Howell, J.A., and J.E. DiDonato. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations, Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California, Sept. 1988 through August 1989. Final Rept. for Kenetech Windpower, San Francisco, CA. E: Janss, G. 2000. Bird behavior in and near a wind farm at Tarifa, Spain: management considerations. Proc. National Avian -Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, CA, May 1998. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, DC. Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight strategies of migrating hawks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. pp.389. Kerlinger, P. 1995. How birds migrate. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. pp. 228. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 20 Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology, 1995-2000. Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kerlinger, P. 2001a. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg, Vermont. Proceedings of the National Wind/Avian Planning Meeting, San Diego, CA, May 1998 (www.nationalwind.org). Kerlinger, P. 2001b. Avian mortality study at the Green Mountain Wind Farm, Garrett, Somerset County, Pennsylvania - 2000-2001. Kerlinger, P. 2002 in prep. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg, Vermont. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Dept. of Energy, Golden, CO. Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. www.fws.Qov/r9mbmo Kerlinger, P. and R. Curry. 1997. Analysis of Golden Eagle and Red-tailed Hawk fatalities on Altamont Ownership Consortium property within the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report from Altamont Avian Plan for the Ownership Consortium and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Kerlinger, P., and F. R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. In Current Ornithology, Vol. 6:109-142. Plenum Press, NY. Knight, F., and M. Wilson. 1998. New York Wildlife Viewing Guide. Falcon Press, Helena, MT. Leddy, K., K. F. Higgins, and D. E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. Levine, E. 1998. Bull's birds of New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Marti Montes, R., and L. Barrios Jaque. 1995. Effects of wind turbine power plants on the Avifauna in the Campo de Gibraltar Region. Spanish Ornithological Society. Nicholson, C. P. 2001. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird an bat mortality monitoring report: October 2000 — September 2001. Preliminary report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989-1991. California Energy Commission, CA. Curry & Kerhnger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 21 Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1996. A continued examination of avian mortality in the Altamont Pass wind resource area. California Energy Commission, CA. Strickland, D., et al. 2001. Avian use, flight behavior, and mortality on the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop III, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc. - Trapp, J. L. 1998. Bird kills at towers and other man-made structures: an annotated partial bibliography (1960-1998). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service web report: www.fws.eov"mbmo. Wells, J. V. 1999. Important bird areas in New York State. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Winkelman, J. E. 1995. Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe. Proceedings of National Avian -Wind Planning Meeting, Denver, CO, July 1994. Pp. 110-119. (see other references and summaries within this Proceedings volume). Zalles, J.I., and K.L. Bildstein. In press. Raptor Watch: A Global Directory of Raptor Migration Sites. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association. *Not all of the above references are cited specifically in the text. In some cases the references were consulted and information (or lack of information) was noted without citing the specific reference. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 22 Appendix I. Summary of avian fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines at sites across the United States and Canada. The numbers presented are the results of systematic and rigorous searches beneath turbines. Some of this s derived from Erickson et al. 2001 and Curry & Kerlinger, LLC website (www.currykerlinger.com). • Vermont - Searsburg (near Green Mountain National Forest) - 11 modem turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted June -October, 1996; zero fatalities recorded (Kerlinger, 2000, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume Ill) • New York - Copenhagen (30 miles inland from Lake Ontario) - 2 modem turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted in spring and autumn migration seasons, 1994; zero avian fatalities recorded (Cooper and Johnson, 1995, Proc. American Wind Energy Association Conference 1996) • New York —Madison (central New York) — 7 modem turbines at farmland (hay and com) site. Ten surveys conducted in June -November 2001 (ongoing through May 2002); 2 migrant songbird fatalities (Curry & Kerlinger, LLC) • Pennsylvania — Garrett (Somerset County) — 8 modern turbines at farmland site. Seventeen surveys conducted in June 2000 through May 2001; zero fatalities (Curry & Kerlinger, LLC) • Tennessee — Buffalo Mountain Wind Farm — 3 modern turbines at forested mountaintop site. Fifty plus surveys during 1 year - 2000-2001; 11 songbird and 1 rail (migrants) fatality. (Nicholson 2001 in progress) • Massachusetts - Princeton Windfarm (Watchusett Mountain State Forest and Hawkwatch) - 8 older turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted in autumn & winter, 1993; zero fatalities recorded (Jacobs, 1995, Paper presented at Windpower'94, Minneapolis, MN) • Minnesota - Buffalo Ridge (near Lake Benton) - 200+ modern turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted 1997-2000; about 80 fatalities recorded (35 species) — mostly songbirds, 1 raptor (Red-tailed Hawk), no endangered/threatened species (Strickland, 2000, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III; unpublished data from other researchers) • Iowa — Algona — 3 modem turbines at farmland site; 3 seasons of surveys, zero fatalities (Demastes and Trainer 2000) • Kansas — St. Mary's — 2 modem turbines at grassland/farmland site. Thirty-three surveys conducted during two migration seasons and nesting season in 1999; zero fatalities (personal communication from Gene Young, Cowley College, KS) • Wisconsin — Kewaunee County Peninsula - 31 modern turbines at a farmland site with woodlands nearby. Surveys conducted for about one year; fewer than 20 songbird fatalities recorded (information presented at conference and unpublished report) Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 LIPA — Osprey Dominion Wind Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger 23 Wisconsin — Shirley - 2 modern turbines at farmland site, 1 night migrating songbird fatality found during one year of study (50+ surveys) (Report to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) • Colorado - Ponnequin - 29 modem turbines (increased to 44 in 2001) at rangeland site (cattle and bison). Surveys conducted 1998-September 2001 (40+ surveys); --12 songbird, 1 duck, 1 kestrel fatality recorded (Curry & Kerlinger unpublished data provided to National Audubon Society and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Wyoming — Foote Creek Rim — 69 modern turbines at rangeland site. Surveys conducted 1999-2000 report (now ongoing); about 5 dozen songbirds (one-half of which were likely migrating) and 3 raptor fatalities (Report to U.S. Bureau of Land Management • Oregon - Vansycle Ridge - 35 modem turbines at a farmland site near the Columbia River. Surveys conducted for one year in 1999 and presently ongoing; zero raptor or endangered/threatened species, <8 songbird, 4 gamebird (some alien species) fatalities (Report to local county from company) • California - Altamont - 5,400+ mostly older turbines at grassland site. Significant raptor mortality recorded (exceptionally high raptor and prey density); small numbers of some other species involved (Orloff & Flannery, 1992, 1996, California Energy Commission Report, other reports) • California - San Gorgonio Pass (Palm Springs area) - 2,700 modem and older turbines at desert site (or 3,500 in area). Recent surveys of 120 turbines revealed about 34 fatalities at these turbines (Anderson et al., California Energy Commission, 2000, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III) • California - Tehachapi Pass —nearly 5,000 modern and older turbines in area. Surveys of 180 turbines in rangeland/arid grassland documented 84 fatalities (wide variety of species, small numbers of raptors (Anderson et al. - California Energy Comm., 2000, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume III) • Other States - Several facilities in Texas and other locations in Iowa - no reports available at the present time, but large numbers of fatalities have yet to be reported • Canada Quebec - Le Nordais, Gaspe, Quebec — 2 projects, 133 modern turbines at forested site. Surveys of 26 turbines over two migration seasons; zero fatalities (Province of Quebec Ministry of Environment 2000) • Alberta —Medicine Hat and Lethbridge - 2 projects with dozens of relatively modem turbines at each; zero reports of fatalities Curry & Kerlinger, LLC — June 2002 Attachment C Archaeological Resources Historical Perspectives, Inc. MN 1't`TN FEET FIGURE 1 iISGS Southold Quadrangle, Dro; ect Site Locaticr, Sit-- 1, Peconic. 1979. Historical Perspectives, Inc. FIGURE 2 Atlas of Long Island, New York. Site 1, Peconic. Beers 1873. No Scale. Historical Perspectives, Inc. ❑ STP 1, 5M NORTH ❑ ❑ STP49 5M WEST STP29 5M EAST ❑ STP3, 5M SOUTH FIGURE 3 Location of Shovel Test Pits, PhaselB Field Investigation. Site 1, Peconic, May 2002. Approximate Scale: 1 centimeter =1 meter MAX I UtN AHUHLULUGICAL A55UC., INC. CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALISTS 1744 Washington Ave. Extension RENSSELAER, NEW YORK 12144 (518) 283.0534 Fax (518) 283.6276 E-MAIL: hartgen@hartgen.com -C I WE ARE SENDING YOUAttached Under separate cover via the following items: Shop draevings /r - Prints - P!an=_ Samples C Specifications Coos or letter - Change order .. �_. DA `2 NC. DESCRIPTION - - i ; . ,._..E .4F.E-..?^;�i:7!-TED as checked telc.v: -jr 3.:orcva[ FDr ;ryr o_e As;c4UCScd F=,, _.,e.v and ^omment -Gti p1cS DI:E -- - Accroved as >ubmatad - Acprcve.a 3s ,oled Returned for -orrections - Resubmit copies for approval - Submit copies for distribution - Return corrected prints _ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US s as -.,•. �.i. krroh nar, us at o. 50 (- � l Y q,� fir' - � � .ti n .�•�./\il. •+s .. ;.3 w 0/a�� 5• • .. a. i ly`�'_) ,. Ali: Pine Crreo �•.S6t1tIlOML� ' ^, (BoSd � � ' 9M �Z tn\"i' as yl-✓�.' � ` �-�i�,,,- �.- r,-7- I � Y"r' � �H. • " l QV � f ',. ?. 3 '.✓ ::�Dic<� - fi �p�T:-o'` J� � ' _' ✓ `g ,eke v NZ Golds th ✓ 1, ,+$.4 / t; u 3 inlet"waua •r'fNE Nfi L20 +''�• A. R r P if \ mil`• ` Pecomc +� a\ t -4Peconic � Gooe Seh rr Zl i .. ti •= �," d. 7M1 s e `, I r v Laughing e - o _� a le Waters •• .+"� + ~y ` �, a, 0 1 'South t{vfiI q 3F r n •t+ xo Tl Hog NeckBay 29 ep to 2 E ♦ 1 Q UIT, Fl I It" !:I Ally I q I I VNk 11, IN J P-, I IAA Iholccl Niimbei Client — \1 ill.we FoNvil CmIlity ("111,11letc(l by: Dale -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NEW YORK STATE MUSFUM # Sites Slillo 9 Sites (C) Ilyildin lin.mrnv r,II_Staills .__._ PoioiC_ohied ProPerty_I/._scril ion _ Roads Checked___ I PREVIOUS SURVEYS 2_-�-�[��,�.✓►i- �� uoeS Ll)ceo- I�.�- l.l n1{�P 13:�� Peec`�o,�niic-I !op '_1lTile � i� ( 1 !� — , w,�� Q� Iflfl PA 7t� / I ! �/l�l (� /nQ)I ') ��_ (YXaln�im - (�J_ nrd i Cw\ n� t - L jl\u Q1L -1 T 76(o PI ,-99, I7-1 (fit? s _Ce��a126 19 5 � Yl ' l t� i /k'.5�� 1 t ��5�y- A e ql��e mild ld It (Nam) r? ct , (A)O (1� # � �`� � 7►21� ;ems- ��a , >1 l��' . max) 9icAmcq/tnl 4v4pk' IN �- 4)�XjLI NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM -or Office Use OnlySiteIdentifier /1/v3-/c-Uzz7 Sri-�:/.� �O cr..r✓ �/,:^�S �r. ./ S,n:✓�y )ject Identifier JDate July, 1980 'u.:r Name Edward J. Johannemann Phone (516) 24 - , address Ant'nrcoolooy Department S.U.N.'Y. Stony Brack Zip 11794 )rganization (if any) Lone Island Archaeological Project Site Identifiers) Countv Suffolk Edward Jchannemann S;-�e moo. 3s =3 _ One of following: City Township FeeQQIQ Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet Present Owner Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Address P.O. Box 144 West Sayville, N.Y. I I n 11790 Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site Suverstructure: complete martial collapsed not evident_ Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident Structural subdivisions apparent _Only surface traces Visible —Structural traces detected LeT st construction materials (be as specific as possible): Grounds Under cultivation Sustaining erosion xWoodland _Upland —Never. cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain _Pastureland Soil Drainage: excellent good fair x poor Slope:. flat gentle moz—aratex steep _ Distance to nearest wa-er from structure Tapprox.) 180 ft. Elevaticn : 5 ft,_ Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary): Surface --dates) Ju1v. 19"0 xsite Mao (Submit with form*) Collection S L'STuriaCe--date ($) r 9 `1 BD . Testin: shovel coring_ other unit size 30 X 40 cm. no. of units 1 (Submit plan of units with form•) Excavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan o units with form*) e Submission should be 8''xll", if feasible Ill v_�;t' gat or Ed Johannemann & Laurie Schroeder yams cript or published report(s) (reference fully): .r,s_nt z-!_ository of materials 4nthrocolcov Dect S U N Y. Stony Brook 6. Site inventory: de date constructed or occupation period late 19th c. b. previous owners, if known 7. c. mcd:.fications, if known _\ (append additional sheets, if necessary) Site decumenta.tion (append additional sheets, is necessary): a. Historic map references 1) Name Date Source Present location of original, i known b. c d 2) Name Date Source Present location or original, i2 known,_ Repr=_sentation in existing photography 11 Photo date Where located 21 Phc5te data Where located Primary and secondary source documentation (reference fully) Pei_:.n;s w_c.. mamc-y cf site: 1) 2) Address Address 7.ist cf :. `e:.:.=.' -_-ains ct-.er that, those used in construction (be as uQssiae in ldentlfving object and :::ater:.al) . Bottle glass fragments ("Greens Nervura"), stoneware, redware, shells, coal, coal ash and unidentiflahle pcs. of rusted metal. If prehistoric materials are evident, check here and fill out prehistoric site form. map ReFarences: Man or mans showing exact location and extent of site must accompany this form and must be identified by source and date. Keep this submission to 8h"xll", I- feasible. USGS 7' Minuta Series Quad. Name 1956 Southold Quadrangle .eon Office Use Only--UTM Coordinates 7.:1. Phctog=aphy (optional for environmental impact survey): Please submit a 5"x7" black and white print(s) showing the current state o= the si e. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate sheet. �- — SD 14a NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Only --Site Identifier A e0 3/0. 0 0001,E Historic Structures urvey Project Identifier (for Town of Southold Date'October 1986 Your Name Town Hall, idain Road Phone (526) 765— 92 Address Sout:^.old L.I., N.Y. 97 Organization (if any) Southold Town Community Development Office I. Site Identifier(s) "Gr=at 'dp.stern Mill" 2. County Suffolk One of following: City Township Southold _ Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet Southold 3. Present Owner un_znown Address 4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site Superstructure: complete partial —collapsed —not evident x- Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident x _Structural subdivisions apparent _Only surface traces visible Buried traces detected List construction materials (be as specific as possible): wood Grounds _Under cultivation Sustaining erosion _Woodland _Upland Never cultivated Previously cultivated _Floodplain Pastureol.a:. Scil Drainage: excellent good fair _ poor _ Slope: flat gentle moderate x steep_ Distance to nearest water from structure (approx.) Elevation: 5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary): Surface--date(s) Site Hap (Submit with form*) Collection Suxsurface--date(s) Testina: shovel coring_ other unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) Excavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*) * Submission should be 8-i"xll", if feasible Investiaator none known Manuscript or published repor:(s) (reference fully): 3.J =;._:a r. Sdind ills o, Long Island.1983. Pp. 52-55,79,107. sk�r rlhi*aknr1 s Southo ld.AmerAon House. Mattituck. Pp.84-5. I. Paeans, Pur-j7ans Patriots. 1975• P.58. its or=c Sits of Southold Town to 1815.T?rcentenary Committee. 19g3 Coast Survpv. 55. 1838 P.15 Present repository of materials none. known (cont.) Page 2 see also USn/. SD 14a 6. Site inventory: , a• dace constructed or occupation period 1Z._q.-1$.7.0__circa. di. b. previous owners, if known Southold Mill Copmpany, Rene Villefeu C. modifications, if known First mill moved to Shelter Island where T it still stands. Second :Hill on site moved there in 1839•_. (append additional sheets, if necessary) 7. Site documentation (append additional sheets, if necessary): a. Historic main references - 1) Names; bate 1 R 9A Source U.S. Gov. Present location o� original, if known 2) `ieme Date Source Present location of original, if known b. Representation in existing photography 1) Photo date 188p where located 2) Photo date where located c. Pri-ary and secondary source documentation (reference fully) of =-cnE=sla-d. 198". S2, S3, 79 d. Persons with memory of site: 1) Name Address 2) Nane Address c. t o- material remains other than those used in construction (be as speci__c _= pos=__ble in identifying object and material): d_-*=" ate_=crs to have been d=mollsaed. if nrehis-Cr_c materials are evident, check here and fill out prehistoric s.lte form. 9. Man References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of sit must_ accompany this form and must be identified by source and date. Keep this submission to 8'h"xll", i_=easible. USOS 7� Minute Series Quad. Name Southold For Office Use Only--UTM Coordinates lG. Photograp:y (cpt_onal for environmental impact survey): Please submit a 5"x7" black and white print(s) showing the current state of the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate Shea'_- . r.2 pr�_„rs^. b; os-nary Skye :+:oritt, research assistant. SD 14a (coat.5. Manuscript or Dublished rPDort. Mary H. Walls. The Story of Jockey Creekm "Small Building". Manuscript. 1957 /N SD 14a U.S. Coast Survey T-55. 1838 Adbp er My,y • __ SD 3• 1 ,A -- Pine Crez' Dunec'"'r•- i ,• z 4 . th O+cl :.Ya•; 4?,,,,1 �St.. zi .. y> •• Nam} .''<�[�+°• > q • F 25 Peconic N, per k ��` ch �•' Vec nil T �.• / L"'� •' `4 H p � ter- r_ ,� i6 .�lF ,• a J�y� e o South ' y c. o �'c o a vxw 25 •• , a eM _ Bay No c o / 'o * 6 I• ° East 3pACutclI, •�, � ° dye S �•. °a • .'.... _ � • �� 4 l 10 04 S DQT„Sou"thc4Id Quad�� x iat'h" � •4 �: .i' •. _ Y ..: �,�. yr ..R3., 7:,_ 14a r Shelter Island Windmtil r Mo ve d r- - clrcr Island Windmill. n.: 7'1. N;irl?aniel DOmin\' `� �'7Il( Cl1I- w inimili m I hii . _ l .h I � ,: ,, n\ whose partners include. Bamabas Case, %loses C!eve!and, knish Hat iiLIck, Be.^,I1min Horton, an-- Nathan. iel Overton. Icscoo on Mi!i H:ii'at ihc'.\'esc end or rrle village er Sourh-:.a for almost ih VC',: ':ear? b2Ci,fe :C w'a$ i27i'�2d D'� �r1e1C2C sand. This a ;rdmil! s .he onic sun'i\•in • c nz fora ,. \ xc� � r, o Isiani buclicdz is kno =: -: it h_ hist?r; Chzre. D.Dminw V's accivie: c-..he North Fork shows the zxrerc co which his millwright- ing>kills were recogni_;i. Demim• V also built a sawmill in Soucho(d in 1511, ant rzceives credit too--. xime forbuildin� rhz One^i'\�'indmi!i; also in 1510. Narhaniel Domino V :.)re to Moses Cleveland in 1510 answer ing some question about the p!acnzd construction of the mdl. This le¢e. indicates that the Southold Compan': had unginally planned ro build a mill with one pair of :-irecr^drive sc,`nes, ar.1 nad even cut the Cimberr)r 1,,, bur late; decii e ! -o construct a mill Chat cC' I'd accommodate two pairs of millstones. A,minv Vas lectergives the 8ddicio-.al specircacions needed ro plan a mill with incern?ediate seariMg and cv ci pairs' millstones, one of which he specifies co be bur, stones and Che ,)cher m be roc..- scones. Dorn my V also prawides derails on some of the .on?ponenrs of the dri': e 4yscem required for m o pain of scones: the spindle e .ms, center lvisc, brakz wheel, wallower, and great spur \wheel. East Hampton April 1:rh 1810 Sir. I receive voun of :=.: 9ch 1nsc. which informs nu •iar if•:our cumber will answer \r,u have conclude ce : r cwo run of Stones in %'our \Iiii—I relieve it will do well. Zndifyouframegirder;:._rocsnr:ourbridgebeamsG:iiwUrp M fourand- inches �rnm [;,p nfxone b-:an-. �mp:,E>aid �,irdzrc, the'.•nwer s: .\ii!.Snsu'cr ax agrzed 9 3 -..-. ^z=21P'_". _.�:,jmiy c Long Lc- island. 198 ue,.,n. bu: if cote conclude :o have the bridge beams lie on those girths -which support :he upper [loot -Chaps -.he ln%%er score'] had b ette r be as much as 1' feer h4h-3 rd inQ- c�a.ibetierbeenlargedasmuch athehtwmorthe amuwillcome coo Writ—=t:;The scene :warms mac be Z Feet Sr..:C.Inches apart & he posts under them $;An : , sh . ch the inside of the beams & 3 Feet between -hem the ether way-5ch Thep, ,;; :n center of \ i ill mac be from 18 to 24 Inches and long enough to rise 4 Feet Irche> : bow- he stone beans-6th The plank rim to be in 6 pieces- l Cogg \V,'hae! be ; feet diameter—& Spur Wheel i Feet 31. with i? Cogs each 3Va by !nchesl,,nc—Cantsofscurvhe: :-:.ncheswide&+thick —Facing of N,,inches,videand3thick—thewidthofarms)In. +_ thick —The \1'allower 3 fact !, lnchesdiameterufplank '_ Inches chic::. eachhead to be double thickness ri"e ' an';::,c%)$s-7� Ruunds .4lnchcs!^a-.yea shoulders and 3Inches r—The rim that holds the coogs ror turn:ne the rnp of Mil! may be 3 Inches chi..._.....,,[ sclde—_Cvc!u34,.r3?re" !. ;Inches thickon,i10deepac :^.c cn.ie pr, p„rciuned io as to suit:hc ;,,ints when he%ved 6 Inches one about 31,' or4lncheS acend— �.. ,. Wit. Wes+Faet+Inchesdiamever—and hemek�mnes+Feet�ur9 Incha,al.,mr;crvnd he mm�er l i .�r ij Inches thr.�u5h the cye—` o. the Puss in c:n•cr'n.r:becmtcb.enonefthealareestonee!aceJunder the —. ;ors&c . I•Ipfnpr. Windmills of Long island. 1983 v` aq i he sails and the rotted Hill, :ru ram, _�. __..,._...:.'g "'^T""_^" a'tt-_.. _;�`.�'._, _�-'�-y",•ri�i r �Y311'S�W�. H —low 43 Shelter Island Windmill,zec_mdfloor. gear. abo%e.superseded the lower crnwn Thu=he'zerisim;':C!nd::::'!h:ucnetunof uheei.ac_:.iesignlikechatintheHook\till Cu:r .! or r< e' T'V" and �i^ ° ctedly made:v Domi t The crow xhee;<wcr< <ur<.:"a':he'upright upper r •nwhzeldrit'tsalacshat..wnich ,ow2rcr.ershei•. D'ominy Vas blil w the ,wncrs of the mall indtca,es -flat local carpenters muss have .l_slsrd ! lltRl. Do:m % V charged the mltl con -anv for six tv-six dals of his ott'n time and I O.:lacs for the time u!"his apprentices. Asa.Miller, aerr: Parsons, and Lewis Parsons. T his number of man•aays is about one-third t'ne COCA! _ nounr L2..ht �j-'=u r, 1uilu •l new R1Ill. it is lltgl:.t?hat in .+000hotd. `.1'hf [2 Domrn `' an,l. his apprentices '•t'OUId h^.`:2 iit b:.>a[.i. iota! craftsmen tt•uuld �O as 1-11ach Jt tf1C '.� Jik :ls Ct;iab le. The only record of the tpemnon of the windmillinSouthold is an account bi"'k 2nCl C:ed"Nc'.tMii! 5 h' k fOr lyi_." This 1:o,,k zonrainS the aeci uncs of 'bd Rt.l1 t•s ?lve •.:'.t'Re^� a[T�!'aiio records char_,es CO in.dh'1dUal CUSCOmtfs. Most :, nleslinl charges art rur Jn2 ha".r A'. three busheli Jr Aleut, : l;c"%%-h C, co, R1, i Orprocen,ier. The .icc:=unci indicate that the mill . ^eraced throughout h C 2a 1r c . 71 i`l, Dt' ui 1 s ,niU t'is :nit•: ed ; , :hzlt� hllnd in h was replace In d„u it 'i !_; s tehi.r l < tin n mnved rhere hom the �atc Meyer=e';=h'ro. On Domir),. su'int.mill stoodatthevillagecenm;. �! Thu 1 JO l CReus •.tf IRduSCry shOws rha. -h2 u1i11 h ?little business by that LIIl1C, n; uRlc'1C0 bushels ,+f amin the pre': ious tear. Nix surprisingly, the mill had cease;! itptratin; <an:etime before 13 i 9. Lillian Horst rd purchaneu the windmill 5horrtt' after 1879 and maintained it s: Ian,inrvk. The mill':raw pu?brick in:.:peracion _wring"191 i •191S Co provide r1t l AtId tIOLlr < , tt th2l ar i .unn he food conser% act,,n perto,l .:ovzdchi n.iI! tot rhc „t >'t f,:r.,.'n=he"c:I'rir._i..tr_r:itreniain:O,la:. 55 ._. ,. R.J. Nayror`, '-find-ills of Lo^.a island. 1983 Dear Sir. Rensselaeryille April loth 1822 I it s :lie esrec; bui!d a .c!nd mil! -;s seastr. at Albanv f,r miadingcom & roe r a,i isallrr, and in case I do. I sh, uld l!ke esceedin¢ w•e?:I to have some infomla- rion res:c::inzcerain imrn,•:caner.r: said to have been madetn.chat kindofmill sinceIii1e.i,rich,,Li, of.chid:^,cr,-. m. vn[sv,,uareundoubcedlvacquainted •.c i;h. I , m [. iSw roil+..ills arc r.:., c,.n- tutted so its co conrinueiv face the wind by t!le •.c;n.i.,.,,,.r raver aka [o reef an.i re_ulace the stone. as to reeulacm- the sronc ? ;nil -. r.:e,:c,;,:.un a,i .cch the rrn:i.e.,Etht,:rem[i,,n, havoc.¢>een something ,,f rile.kind it Far 3ush,chen I'A%e.i s;:h eou. I wish to be informed if you please ,chenccr c,,n: chink :hi> kin,! „ f machitmr v is rrofitabic used and ifso whar addi- n:d exrea:e In Crrlraru, n'.,":Ch the plan used when. I !ived',vtch cou, I wish co !:a,,,i". •„ tt !'�'� �'! ?e.l^ are ::,c'.:!: :. _...,.:;,Q w'het!'& :ro%; n wheel and if it, who h,lsCast:hem.forI:iiink-he% c:u;re.: s[in�zadifferer.tantzlefromthecommon bevcl gelr, .uld'.vh„e,•er has vas• :hean t;:r wind :Hills probably have patterns, the man char I c.ercc[ -I., build tar is it:lmiz r,: hate i[ cost him abou['_000 dollars it re,:uiresnandcalth„he,vshe> . ha%eicdoitb!e-earedand then when he chooses 4e c ,r. ].'.,: ;in.,rhtr r.:n or <COnes I sh.Iuld Iike a, have coo Eli ce nit a rarCieuler descrirnon„tchem,,.cunpro%e Plan.Ifiti,convenientanditnot some general de,Crirrion to ,ehannil1 v,R1 ., ul,l rca,mmend me to cake a draughr of. if it should betier" es,.r, tun,let,t::r,1\ItSc;,eliiczerhas built one a[Brookhndifferent from r!:o,e ar Ea,t Hantrt,,n and rh,a :% :te of that turns ,kith the kind but whether it I. ,'„ub'e dc.irc ,,r n.•t I Ina•: ::, : ?car,:cd chore is one near New York on the New lerse-, e •,it,I boon a ven-cYrer:sive Ian chill almost cells the timeofday. Bur b„•.o r.:nhi,::;u.ur^ran, Inc le Idonr k now. lam told chat it is h�ih , rr: rt:eh tnnd, ken f,ur:m,! d, eit work i,') I shout{ like to have youropinion ot,,netoil,17"rk'.clthrhtgreatest dispnrchIhavenor heard 4 %oar h.i%irw built a mil! where :he r::p turn, by [he wind, but perhaps you have, Mid I:rIUC.'.,'rl nve F,mc 4,enernl:dea:.,them mid perhaps have an improvement that:uu;,ui:;a•L'ea me ondl,sea,,,vinuscanycommunicationscharyouwill rlca.e:n:ke.,1!l be:i:.u;kr,:ik :ccc::,,: yhim,vhoi,thankfulr,rnianvinstruc- nors.11•ca,k near:e,! rr: re,recri ,ail:m old friends in East Himpron particularly iA!1I;1r:;e'.l71:`,an'r:;,cr itcr!•n.r':cr,:f:en ,'on'r kn,.w hilt thev areall r ti":. e4.ts,.:..ie,I nc: hr,,:I1cr E,l,rard chat v,wsaw 71 Isaac Edge's Windmill. Isaac Edge's windmill as pndwrbly the Moat sophisticated ,me I#the Nm York vicinity at the rime. Charles Winfield's 1874Hist( vofthe Gxmjg t4 udam. Neu -jersey. gives the hism{yof he windmill.IsawEdge came co Amefica i li IWI from England where his father ope used a windmill in Derbyshire. In 1813,1 commissioned the millwrights Burmley imd Oakes it) build a windmill at Paulus Hokkan the New lersevshoreacross all the Mai pinery for the mill was imported from Frtgl ndand that the windmill was "conduct in all particulars like the mill of Mr: 'sfather inDerbyshire:'This windmill, &rith its direcrconnectiunto England. i uty, have plavedanimix,rtant mle in the imptmatitmof the new windmill technokigyro America. The etching aCCOnkpan •ing W infield's account shows awindmil with afiwr-sc(,mcoweruna two story tone base. The mill has a fantail andpaten sails. The tetrei writcren by Charles \tultord to Nathaniel Domim' V in 18" contains furrhosul stantiationof the sophiscicared m ichmerc .,f this windmill. Mulford describesi windmill he hcuheardofas hei ne "near Kew 'orkonthe New Jersey short ,ai,i tobe,ina ert•e:cpemiveplanchatalmu,r rellsthe tic tufday.but how far this mulct- plyingm hinemisproticablel,kin'tknowl am cold chi titisbuilcven'high grinds very is lacEdge's windmill was theunly oneufthis yWknown n,have been bullt-on the Nckvje uty short. Mulford's account indicates tarthe windmill was equipped with many a"ilian' and automatic devicc,,. This wind. iU vasdisman led in 1839 and in .. •,..... __. ,.. .,u... .. _ .. _ .a... rc .. R„41a,:. ll rly.cerrn I,. :r-,.I i,. reC'\e,rccm Charles L Mulford i,Ti-+d-^_i_s of Lone Island. 1983 , 79 ;, THE WINTER HARBOR - AVI SD 14a Be halfway up the road and later moved it most of the rest of the way. It is now owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kendall White. Just as the conversion of -Robins Island Neck into New Suffolk was �( y beyond the time frame of this book, so was the creation of dreenport out of the hamlet of Stirling. Even earlier the area had been called "The Winter Harbor" because it was accessible when Town Harbor at Southold was closed with ice. At the time of the Revolution there were about six houses in Stirling. t ?►" *' p The most prominent building was the Constant Booth Inn at the head ..;.i.'M'�✓.7.'' •g' �r+f'� of Stirling Creek, where there was a wharf and landing. A huge boulder in front of the Greenport Presbyterian Church, close to where the inn stood, has an embedded brass plaque telling about the inn's I Thar plaque in the boulder. most famous visitor, who will be discussed later. Even after the farm of Capt. David Webb was sold at auction on March 23,1820 — Augustus Griffin being the auctioneer — and a rapid real estate development ensued, the name remained Stirling until 1843, when the inhabitants opted for Greenport: East Marionr the Oysterponds tipper Neck of the original Oyster - ponds Dividend of 1661, and Peconic, once called Heritage, also became recognized communities in the post -Revolutionary era. Durin; the Revolution, Greer:nort '!rom an old en3r21'ipiz) u'idn't exist. There was a time when the land on the eastern end of Long Island was as filled with spread canvas as the :cater. The .vide sweeping, cloth - covered arms of windmills. as picturesque as those on a Dutch postcard or those Don Quixote used to tilt at, churned the horizon in every direction. The South Fork has a few of them left and they are carefully cherished. The North Fork has none, although originally it may have had more than the South Fork. There were mills of every variety. In addition to the windmills, which were mainly used to grind grain into flour, there were water mills which performed the same function less majestically and also turned saws to slice logs into lumber. There were horse mills. too, with sweating animals laboriously doing the work of wind or water. Although the first mention of a mill in the existing Southold' town records was in 1679. there is a structure at Water Mill, on the South Fork, that dates back ro the 1640's and it is unlikely that Southampton's first settlers were any more ingenious than those .cho were here. In the 1679 record the town voted to give Joshua H braham Corey and Daniel Terre two acres on what is still kno ✓, as bliii Hil] at the western i�edge of Southold village "to set a Wind `.Iilf;on _; a saidland lying at Pine Warren Hai'_. Pawns, Puritans, Patriots, 1975 _ ICI IlNllglp SA WHITAKER'S 50UTHOLD t- THE T1AfEs OF THE FOUNDEIIS ct well knew how to make vice and crime pay taxes and not when it burned down a few years ago. The site is still known ress as a, heavy burden upon the shoulders of the virtuous. It as Mill Hill. one of .'the lost arts. The early records also disclose how On the I Ith,of March, 1667-8. there was an adjustment of ander woks punished, and how the place was kept free from boundaries made with the Town of Southampton.* ie bodies and odors of dead animals, though I find no law On the i3th of March, 1670-1, John Budd sold to Isaac i relatiob to the removal of dead fish from the surface of Arnold one -eighth of the ketch "Thomas and John" for ie grounil.a The Records make it plain how the town street was rnai5i- forty-five pounds of current pay. Said ketch was on a voyage .ined in good condition and other highways kept in order; to Barbadoes. ;The burden of the ketch was rated at forty- four tons.t There were few men in Southold at that time who :Pw proper regulations were made for the wharf which John severally had ail estate worth as much as this sloop of forty- oungs, rtiariner, was permitted to build at the Head of the four tons burden. Two years later, and probably at: this date, 'arbor, rlqar the present residence of Mr. Francis Landon. the price of merchandise or produce often used in barter was Now thesite of Town Creek Park. —Ed.) The following is a specimen of the local legislation as well in Southold aslfolfows: an illustration of the record thereof Barrel of pork Eo3 - Io — 00 "July 059, It was then in like manner ordered that from Barrel of beef 02 —• 05 — 00 u Bushel of summer wheat oo - oq - 46 r ' te publicacon hereof no working cattle bee put to foode on I Bushel of pease oo—o3 —o6 ie com'ons to disturbe the cowes, and for the prevencon ; hereof they are to go under the hand of a sufficient keeper, The Town Records also made known what laws were en - id in case any doe otherwise they are thereby lyable to pay acted for the preservation and control of boats, canoes and )r one ox so taken every tyme 12 d. The same to continue skiffs, as well' as for pasturing cattle, sheep and goats, re- ` itil the'nd of Indaan harvest, this yeare and every other straining hogs,, prohibiting sate or gift of dogs to Indians, !are hereafter from the beginninge of cow keeping till the and also rum and arms without an order from a;magistrate d of Indann harvest under the same penalty until a pastuill and a full record of the whole transaction. They also show provided to preventtbe aforesaid inconveniency," what premiums were paid for killing wolves, foxes and other The Records show beat on the 3d of April 1679 the Town kinds of "varattent; and that these premiums ye►r by year Voted a site for to Joshua Horton, Abraham my '. made a conspicuous figure in the financial estimates and ex- 'Town. of and Enid tijr, tea mill to be Plue Neck upon t!!e penseb of the -h-s" Gvel 4ainst pi . -- -3 mmse. T114t 13, the mill on -record also prescribe the way in w as to staled where the windmill of Mr. Rent Villefeu stood whichthe ratabks intuit be presented to the proper of ftr by •Tha Use of fish for fatil4ation of the fields, effieleat but b4My each inhabitant, and the payment be made within fourteen days after the publication of the rate. .orfid. hsd,aay rwm* been aMod"W when tali Immoro s comment i u 09RD4'Par a fun seemat of the spring ffshina see my Maiffewrfi, 22&- I Printed Records, Yol I, p. r/8 Relv. R. Whitaker. Whitaker's Southold, tibid., P. 293. rn A%ereon House. Nattituck, 1882 d•- : a SmallSD 14•a Tho'lon 4jgtory sf a �Bu_ildi nK._ The 1sat►d p=.z;oe'�ey Crock is at the nest end of the ♦illa6e oL Southalt �.�. .. 1 Hill"and .!''Vise Rua"Mlily there is no mill there today rat least thrss btu stood them siase the''tia0 of the Taxes Uesting on April- 3e147a when,. they -d that +Jsyhua 4ort9nrAbraham Corey and Daniel Terry shall have axidLho' their he -is roreverj ti!o }ewes of land to set a xindm�i,j. on yes said laad`�x at plus Eeal;,ppoa the Hill over agaiaet Peter Dickerson'a house or where � uts."Peter Diokersoq,a tanner had his home on the north aide at,thtrCr4e^� ;® in later yearn the laro►e home of Hiram Terry stood until Ifoliax1121 Rri? k laadaar4 7a ola ustion of its eontents,the house was taken doxq,and another �ri•�, �t. '1455 the paint and i4ardx:are Store of G.T.Snith steads near the street 433'`+ lat property. - +fie gna"got its- name from the sma11 stream of see,.earater t'rat ran Lhrm Rk ,to uadtr 7; d t,,tha meadow land to the west.Sercnty-five years agc ~3 weather at gnat point�t , and fall 'Of ttd ,1n aorma. lac ; little running brooY,and xa$ fas:inat n3 to Ye the effeat a� •a_� The +^,:3at?-e.4taraill+ wax moved to Southold from :iex aaraey ip 183� r ox lsi�l �ili,The story of that mill nd set u0 leas been told else Rie.ary� ,. f•� e will tol?, the history of a me all building attached to that mill' 11� is still standing:,It xps attached to the north side of the mill Lit r r..... `a.ta eng'nc 'inatallcd in it. The en3dne,hoxeverwaa soon abandoneitas ,12 ;nsiva to run ,&nd iq L1se, fail of 1843,ai the little building eas bouh6+.`l ye a * Deacon Yoe.es Cr .,. , group of looal Presbyterians,and moved to the land. r , �. the main streat,ncar' what is now oat Law Ave. Soon it was boua�lrt by t1}a91 �Y rwt Chursh,and tilted up sa a prayer room and lecture hall. Saleaf:abogl� different timearand 1n it David philander HgrVoA/j �. • • :ww^ vr�r,yara v-ht 413 first a�nfjjg alapals. Y lit tl a bui141ng 7 v ab 1871�<�gzekink Je�iu oK�hei� L;. twang - the street from !,t �- a� •- he-: n t'� o �3L. Jenni buildln;: to his property'0.wv��... i�,r�tlg ' Mary.H. 71ells. 1957 _ 'A 4*n4.L�. P. 2 I Z ja,akey Creek Cal Peck'stwhere it served as Soutnold's first meat marke Far aa_.----- tke'- b--Sime 0 B.,jo�r ton.j&=%&r Longr since it was 644 moved to the raof n There where it was photographed In kugust,1955* D V j The Long- Life of a Smrll Building. Continued. ,k hrough the kindness of air. Harry Jennings iG was my privilege,in the summer er of 1957,to examine the small diary in which•his grandfather,Hezikiah .A ennings wrote down the date and cost of his p`urchase,and the items of e:�psi ense in 'converting it into a meat market.I have copied many of them and.nel nem down; here. August 24,1871.Paid to Henry Hunttirjq, Esq.$105.00 for the Old Pnesbpte� --rian Lecture Room.Following are some of items of expense.Carpenter, 7i d: LS.To David Conklin for b1ocY�5.; nails,41.37. Lime,12J bu..1.88. 30 br1ckst$5.80;itoses Cleveland,ma.son,3f days,y12.45. Lumber,l3.77. amber from New Suf_`olk,$27.00. Hair for wall,30 cents;;8 boards for shut+ 75„43-20. The total at the end of the first column was$194.13. Some items from the second- colum- were,Seth Wells Sj days work,t17•.00-' is half bu. lime,G Simensp$1.00. Plank of C.A.Cr.se,$2.50,Stove,J. Vickhaap, ,.00 Stovepipe,O.Brown,=1.50.To Daniel Terry,blacksm4-th,rlinces,41.25.Bolts` cents,3 bars with 4 bolts w1.50. Zine,,2.30: Sta11LI1ooks,V1.20.Six penny- arth nails,10cent3, Hooks and stapes of tin .50.Seth Wells, 6Tdaysr$13.00`". is total at the er.d of the 2nd column stood At $246,:13.. y In the 3rd co'-u--r, we find,Doorlocs, '';45'. !teat Hook,Danie'_ Terry ,j1.001--r :dFer and Day book,$2.30.Two lamas and standard, $2..50. Roll of Paper,Y1,7 :st pan,25 cents. Meat H•ook,Dan Terry,lO cents; -crank from same,.15cents.l :at Sax:Johnny Terryp$3.75. Pair of Balances,$5.00. dutcher knife,90centsz: ,.Cher's Stee1,71.25. Scale, Y9.50. "Grand Total, �284.86. %F The buildin;3 was set close to the .sidewalk and remained a meat market..tui 1 it was moved to the rear of the yard in 1895,where it still stande':A ae :liar was built under i' at that ti-ie,which was used~as long as I the Ten n3a home was occupied,as a_,very excellent root cellar for fruit and vege 'cles.. The snu3 little building itself has been a general storrge room.;,, Built in 1846 it served au an engine roam for a mill only two years,.the serveel the Presb.,church for a quarter century,.as lecture hrllrnd a plac' --prayer meetings,sinVing school,and small private schools.For another qua cantury,i•t was a meat market,1571-195,and for the last 60 years .has rhed the work! go by fr,)m its present location between the Sayre Garage" d the closed Jennings House, in the village of Southold. "•mil`-5-^ :dry H.Wells August 5, 1957. NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM r' For Office Use Only --Site Identifier 41o3-/A-0030 Project Identifier Richmond C—ek Farms Dat $ 12/31/Afi Your Name Hillade'io/•-ohannAmann Phone(546 ,�/,_RA�5 Address Ction;st,•y SJVV ZiP ll7oi._9ipp Organization (if any) T r_ 6rnS�enl g� nl Pr {eCt r•' 1. Site Identifiers),��-e_,(`i.,,.� f=Nn r S 2. County One of following: City Unincoi Hamlet 3. Present Owner none S",h;•o no.,.- nm „+ -Corp. Address b00 r;,.o I �A A 2 l c^ n } ; l l \7 A `•r08?=? 4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Site Stray finds Pictograph Burial r Surface evidence Material below plow -Single component . Location Cave/Rockshelter _ _Quarry Shell midden Cana zone — Buried evidence __Evidence of features Multicomponent Work liage o.- 'OP (lithic) To al in plow zone occupation flop: fied Under cultivation Never cultivated �Previously cultivated Pastureland _Woodland Floigdlain —Upland g_Susta ning erosion Soil Drainage: excellent _ goodZ fair_ poor _ Slope: flat _ gentle �L moderate steep Distance to nearest water from site (approx.) g�jAceT�(eek to west Elevation: _0 +c l(1 r+ ) 5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necetsa:ry): Surface�Ldate(s) :,A,. 1985 -T Site Map (Submit wit orm') .Collection Subsurface--date(s) December 1996 Testing: shovel;Lcoring_ other unit size f no, of units 6 .(Submit plan of un'tslwith form*) Excavation: unit size no. of units u Sul=ission(Submit ahould-bea8�"xll",tifwith feasib a*) -- — Investigator,?t ra,t ;e A'llAdBllA S+enhan�eiRippel-Erikson, ste^aa„le 3y-ne :ript or published report(s) (reference fully): repository of materials Tc-v Pslnrn 4rmhnerino+cal Project 5. Component(s) (cultural affiliation/dates): 7 List of material remains (be as specific as possible in identifying object and material): concave base of quartz biface blade or proj. pt., t uartz biface blade or prof. pt., base of quartz b face blade, ovate quartz hum: blade, part of an Ovate euar;z humpback blade, half of an ovate quartz humpbac e, diamond -shaped quartz humpback blade, part of a trianguloid quartz humpback e, 3 pcs. of worked quartz without cortex, 5 pcs. of worked quartz without core econdary quartz `lakes 21 37 primary quartz flakes. If historic materials are evident, check here and fill out historic site form. _ S. Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must accozpary this form and must be identified by -source and date. Keep this submission to W xll", if possible. USGS 7� Minute Series Quad. Name Southold For office Use Only UTM Coordinates 9. Photography (optional for environmental impact survey): Please submit a 5"x7" black and white print(s) showing the current state of the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate sheet. Figure 17-23. E C� -I- V/ Wad i� ��rJ • �� : r.. \ ! C ' Lomas ''��F�� ., .,�• Pmoaic •. o . Ix q}� 1 l {A • i PROJECT AREA•�� r --• S ,' , o �_ v• fr 1�.,` � - — �e�� lc •}� :7;. ,/ A ft \. � '\1 •� . �ra�' 't�. a .t r _ � � �i ':, \ �y `� stare . b ^� t o r� 3oatn �'' L• ,� u $o Nack' r it jj ,f!•. �-'Foal ,� lam,✓ � � r ., , �� / _ Cis utC to zo cum 21 ZZ 16 ys'~ Cry ^'• +* 1, �,\ (iJ- ` '� ;`ram. \ R\� 'il6fa • S \ .- N21 a w :r 1 t Figure 1. Location of Richmond Creek Farms Subdivision, P@conic. (United States Geological Survey, Southold quadrangle, 1956) Scalo 1 in. 2,000 ft. e :.� Key to Figures 2 - 4 TEST HOLES.. .............. . STRAY FINDS ................... X TRANSECTS....... . STRUCTURES....... ...........L1 FINDS ON TRANSECTS.............. Al At NEIV YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IlVVENTOAY For Office Use Only --Site Identifier * l 9.7FLV • vws�i.7i/ Project Identifier Rirhrnreek _ Date Your Name David J Bernstein i+frane' Address Dept, of Anthropology SUINY-Stow Brook cony funk New York V Zip t t ;941_4364 Organization (if any) 1. Site Idemifier(s) Richmond Creek Farms 2. county Suffolk 3. Present Owner Peconic•• Trust Addressry• • Road ,autharnliton- New York zip 11969 One of 4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories'): Strucrure!site Site _Stay find _Pictograph —Burial Surface evidence JLMaterial below plow zone _Single component —Multiconponent Location _Under cultivation _Pastureland _Upland _Cave'Rocksaelter —Quam —Shell raidden _Camp X_Buried evidence —Evidence of features Never cultivated —Woodland —Sustaining erosion Soil Drairage: excellent_ goody fair— poor — Slope: flat_ gentle$ moderate_ steep — Distance to nearest water from site (Approx.) 10 In El 5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets. if necessarv): City Unincorporated Village Hamlet XWorkshop 1 _Mound Village X Material in pi zone —Intact occup floor —Stratified _XPreviomly cultivated —Floodplanl Site Map (Submit with form) Collection May, 1999 Subsurface --dates) ,biav 1999 Testing: shover coring_ other _ unit size 40cm dia x60cm deco no. of Excavation: unit size Sxl meter no. of units; Investigator David J. Bernstein Ph D Maruscript or published report(s) (reference fully): Bernstein, & Lenardi (1999): a .Archaeological Etaluarion of Lots 2 and 3 in Richmond Creek Farms, Town of Southold, Sigh York. Insrimtc for Long Island Archaeology. SUNNY -Stony Brook. Present repository of materials Institute for Lone Island Archaeology. SUNY-Stour 2 New 17 'A" Page 6. Component (s) (cultural" affrliationidates);prehistoric; cultural affiliation unknown 7. List of material remains (be as specific as possible in identifying object and material): Lithic debitage and two quartz bifaces. If historic materials are evident, check here and fill out historic site form. _X (no form— light density of 20th century debris) 8. Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must accompany this form and must be identified by source and .date. Keep this submission to 8.5x11" if possible. USGS 7.5' Minute Series Quad. Nance Sourho a New York (1956) For Office Use Only—UTM Coordinates 9. Phorograohv (optional for environmental impact survey): Please submit a 5x7" black and white prints) showing the current state of the site. Provide a label for the prim(s) on a separate sheet. see repo,-. Richmond Creek Site " m m a d SOvr• • a i NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE Jl�t.E ORY FORP4 i For Office- Use .Only --Site Identifier /4/02- a— •- sY�+i:C �uwty //wriii j'r,, r..� ( <.. ,S I✓C Project Identifier Date, _ July, 1980 Your Name Edward J. Johannemann Phone516) 246,015, 6745 Address Anthroacloov Department S.U.N.Y. Stonv Brook Zip 11794 Organization (if any) Long Island Archaeological Protect .. 1. Site Identifier(s) 2. County Suffolk Edward Johannemann Sft•no, tS -/ One of following: City Unincorporated Village or Hamlet 3. Present Owner Suffolk Co. Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Address P.O. Box 144 West Sayville, N.Y. Zip 1I7 4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Site xStrav find Pictooraoh Burial XSurface evidence _Material below plow Single component Location Under cultivation Pastureland _Upland _Cave/Rockshelter No _M Quarry o Shell midden Vi _Cana Ma zone Buried evidence _—In —Evidence of features St ulticomponent Never cultivated P xWoodland F .. S rks lop Znd Lla Te :or'al in plow zone :ac occupation floor rat Pied milusly cultivated )pd lain ;ta ing erosion Soil Drainage: excellent good_ fair_x. poor _ Slope: flat _ gentle _ moderate _ steep x Distance to nearest water from site (approx.)130 ft. Elevation: 5 ft. 5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets'. if necessary): Surface date (s) July, 1980 x Site Map (Submit with orm*) XCollection Subsurface --dates) 9/4/80 Testing: shovel coring_ other unlit size30 X 40 cm. no. of units 1 (Submit plan-o-f un to with forn�t) Excavation: unit size no. of units ---^ (Suter:�t L:ia.-: o_ units with form*) . * Submission should be 8"rll", if feasible -n'.'es tigator Ed Johannemann u Laurie Schroeder �..,....._._. ^""'eta'MR"•._swu��`�i��SF€MP'�e+�..n '•tr Manuscript or published report(s),.(reference fully); Present repository of materials- Anthropology Dept. S,U.N.Y. Stony Brook 6. Component(s) (cultural affiliation/dates): + List of material remains (be as specific as possible in identifying object and material): 1-Adar,a, l L=vanca and 3 Lar.oka-like quartz projectile points. If historic materials are evident, check here and fill out historic site form. x g, Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must this fcrm and must be identified by source and date. Keep this submission to 8'"xll", if possible. USGS VI Minute Series Quad. Name 1956 Southold Quadrangle For office Use Only_UTM Coordinates 9. Photography (optional for environmental impact survey): Please submit a 5"x7" black and white print(s) showing the current state of the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate sheet. Not conducive to photographing. NEW YORX STATE HISTORIC AR-1-RUOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM r Gi_`ice Use Only --Site Identifier % iv3 -io - o zip P Oject Identifier Date November ll. 1990 Your Name Edgard J. .,onar nema r phone c it \1 v c+-, ar r, $1D Organization (if any) L.I. Archaec-loeical Project 1. Site Identifier(s) Ed Johannemann g�-/ 2. .County Suffolk One of following: City Township Incorporated village Unincorporated village or Hamlet ? �•..;< 3. Prasent Owner Suffolk Co. Dect. of Parks. Recreation & Conservation �,ddr ss P.D. Box jd West Sayville. N.Y. Z-� 11796 Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site SUp'ers=ructure: conpl_te partial collapsed not evident_ above below (ground level) not evident S-rur_tural subdivisions apparent Only surface traces lq sible Buxied traces detected list construction m" ria:_s (be as speci`ic as possible): . Groul:d: Dnear cultivation Sasta.iring erosion x Woodland Upland waver cultivated Frev.ously cultivated X Floodplain _Pastureland Suit Drainage: excellent good fair _xpoor Slop-: flat_ gentle mom-atesteepx , '- Distrnce to nearest water from. stuucture Ta-pprox.) 130' Elevation: 5' Sitte Investigation (append additional Surfaces-date(s) July 1980 x Site Map (Submit with fcrn*) Collection SuEYurface-•-date (s) ' 9/4120 sheets, if necessary): Testing: shovelx coring__ other unit size 30 X 40 cm. no. of units 1 _(Submit plan of units with form*) 2::cavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan—o units with form*j�— e Suhmission should be if feasible, Ed Johanne'ilarn R I nilria Srf+rnPr!Ar -aril.=.aril _ or publish_d report (a) (reference fully) : ository of t_rialE „nthr000logY Deot.. S.U.N.Y. Stnnv Rronk k1agel d. 6, site inventory: At date constructed or occupation period tatP 19 h r. to contemporary b. previous owners, if known C. modifications, if known., (append additional sheets, if necessary) 7. Site documentation (append additional sheets, 1f necessary): a. Histaric map references Date Source 1) Name Present location origins i sown 2) Name Date Source Present ocation o origina , i nown b. Re;r°asantation in existing photography 1) Photo date where located 2) Pinta data where located C. Primary and secondary source documentation (reference fully) d. Perscnz with memoir of Site:--Address itesaddress 1) Name 2) N='ne Address 3, List O a 2'0 =ins Othar than those used in csns�r'3Ction ',be �� •:�G_ `• T A in n` i f. ing Object and r.:a.teral) as g: =.._-1Q 2.� wC:�S .D de ,mil Shell, coal, 1 pc. of bone, 1 wire -cut nail, window glass, bottle glass, white - ware and redware. Tf Drshistoric materials are evident, check here and fill out grehisoric sita form. Y a map Reverences: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must accompany this form and must be identified by scarce and date. Keep this submission to W xll", if feasible. USGS 7% Minut_ Series Quad. Name For O'fico Us Only—UTM Coordinates photo.^rwphy (o_ tienaa, for environmental impact survey) : Please submit a Sax7" black and white print(s) shot+irg the current state oz the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate shee`- NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC ARCFAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM For Office Use Onlx —Site Identifier -10 - ozzS' F o ect Identifier G ! /,.._. +� " ter, ,-,ke �'nate July, 1980 k-ur Name _ Ed.lard J. Jonannemann Phone (516) 246- , 6747- Address Arthroccloev Decartment _ S.U.V.Y. Stony Brock sc Organization (if any) Lone island Archaec100ic21 Project 1 Site Identifier(s) Edward Johannemann 2. County SUffO k One of -following: City Township Peesaic of Incorporated Village Unincorporated Village or Hamlet i?.,, 39 Present Owner SUffolk Co. Deoartmen+ of Parks, Recreation and Conservation Address _ P.O. Sax 1G4 hest Savville. N!.Y. Z_u 11-94 4 Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site Supo z"_::ucture: COMP! ete partial collapsed not evident Fo ,^.d=lien: abcve below (ground level) no evident Structura'- subdivisions apparent Only surface traces visible —Buri.=_.0 traces detected List construction materials (be as specific as possible): Grounds Unde- cultivation Sustaining erosion x Woodland _Upland !,Neva;.- cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain Pastureland Sail Drainage: excellent good fair x poor _ Slop-_: flat gentle moderate x steep '- Distance to nearest water from structure Tapprox.) 200 ft, Blevatio:.. 5 f�- Site In_vestication (append additional sheets, if necessary): Surface-date(s) liiiy- 19gn .,�_Site Map (Submit with forn*) Collection Stisurface--dates) 9/4i80 Tiest.in.c: shovelx coring— other unit size rmgp x an rM no. of units _ 1 _(Submit plan of units with fo*) Excavation: unit size no. of units (Submit plan'o —units with form*) x Submission should be W xll", if feasible Invstigacor n� ti mac Manuscrivt or published 'report (s) (reference fully): reaository of materials Anthropology Department S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook gage 2 6_ site inventory: y earl 20th c. A. date constructed or occupation period b, previous owners, if known C. modifications, if known (append additional sheets, if necessary) 7. Site dccu^ientaticn (append additional sheets, if necessary): a. Historic map references Rate Source 1) Name known Present location o original, i Source Date 2) Name y own kn Present location o oriq:na , b. Ae:resentation in existing photography 1) Photo date Where located 2) Photo date Where located C. Primary and secondary source documentation (reference fully) d. persons with memory of s_ce: 1) Name Address 2� vane Address 8. List o= r„zterial remains other than those used in. ccnstruction :be as speci�ic as possible in identifying object and material): ',ghitew=re, green transfer on whiteware, coal, brick, shell, pcs. of leather and bot':le glass fragments. _< pr_`istcric materials are evident, check here anu fill out prehistoric site form. and ent of 9. Map References: sips°rrius`paccompany this tform aand nmust betidentified by source and date. Keep this submission to 872"x11"r if feasible. USOS 7. Minute series Quad. Name For Office Use Cnly--UTM coordinates 10. Phetcg=aphv (optional for environmental impact survey): Please submit a 5"x7" black and white prints) showing the current state Of the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate sheet. ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION ALBANY. NEW YORK 518 474-0479 REPORTED BY: YOUR ORGANIZATION (if any): DATE: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO.' - QUAD.„ 1L,/dl SERIES u. ' C-.S 7;, ' NEG. NO. TELEPHONE: rt x x x x x x rt x. rt rt a rt rt rt x« rt rt• rt.++♦ rt rt# 1. SITE NAME: I � COUNTY TOWN'CITY: _- <-. �f�. '`� VILLAGE: 3. LOC.%T10N -i. P RESET Ot6?JER: i Otl":E:R'S 6. DESCRIPTION, CONDITION, EVIDENCE OF SITE: ❑ STANDING RUINS ❑ CELLAR HOLE WITH WALLS El SURFACE TRACES VISIBLE ❑ WALLS WITHOUT CELLAR HOLE UNDER CULTIVATION ❑ EROSION Cl UNDERWATER ❑ NO VISIBLE- EVIDENCE ❑ OTHER 7. COLLECTION OF MATERIAL FROM SITE: ❑ SURFACE HUNTING BY WHOM TESTING BY WHOM ❑ EXCAVATION BY W'HONI_ ❑ NONE PRESENT REPOSITORY OF MATERIALS: S. PREE:ESTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATION OR DA LipM1171 DA DAT 0 9. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION OF SITE: 10. POSSIBILITY OF SITE DESTRUCTION OR DISTURBANCE: 11. REMARKS: 12, MAP LOCATION 7'k MINUTE SERIES QUAD. NAME I> NW:UTE SERIES QUAD. NAME: U.S.G.S. COORDINATES:- D.O.T. COORDINATES: (if known) ATTACH SKETCH, TRACING OR COPY OF MAP SOURCE OF MAP: 13. PHOTOGRAPHS (optional.) van �-UUN I r CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY: S.C.A.A. Site Name Town Southold L Probably on Bower:, - r ane U.S.C.S. 7�/t' QUAD. Co-ordiml, Southold :allure Period approx. Type of Sita F-xeavated by Whom Booth When? DESCA IPTION OF SITE: ONDITION OF SITc:- UOLLECTIONS ldetcrip lion, location, wt, :FERENCES: SOURCES OF ivcnoe.n T1... Muse "_,.1* at SOu.thold 1FAMARK 10 3' 20"/ 720 26' 15" 722 APPENDIX B SHOVEL TEST PIT RESULTS PECONIC SITE #1 N 41 02.862' W 072 27.073' STP# LEVEL DEPTH (CM MUNSELL SOIL TYPE CULTURAL MATERIAL NUMBER OF BAGS 1 - 5M NORTH 0 0-13 FILL W/GRAVEL 1 13-40 10 YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE SAND 0 MODERN WINDOW 0 1 GLASS, GREEN WINDOW GLASS, CLEAR BOTTLE GLASS, GREEN PLASTIC, SHELL, 2 40-80 10 YR 5/8 YELLOWISH BROWN SAND CHERT POINT BASE 0 0 2 - 5M SOUTH 0 0-21 FILL/MANURE 1 21-67 10 YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE SAND 0 p PLASTIC, GLASS, 1 2 67-80 10 YR 5/8 YELLOWISH BROWN SAND SHELL, CHARCOAL 0 p 3- 5 M WEST 0 0-20 FILL W/GRAVEL 1 20-50 10 YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE SAND 0 0 PLASTIC SPOON, 1 MODERN GLASS, SHELL, MODERN 2 50-80 10 YR 5/8 YELLOWISH BROWN SAND CYLINDER BLOCK 0 0 NOTE' STP 5M EAST NOT EXCAVATED DUE TO LOCATION IN WETLAND AREA Long Island Farm Bureau Wind Turbine Generators and Towers Drawing Number Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10249, Sheet 1 Of 2 Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10249, Sheet 2 Of 2 Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10267, Sheet 1 Of 2 Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10267, Sheet 2 Of 2 ROHN Drawing No. C981895, Rev 1 ROHN Drawing No. CT981895-1, R2 ROHN Drawing No. A920997 ROHN Drawing No. A920998 ROHN Drawing No. A921513 UNARCO-ROHN Drawing No. A840517 ROHN Drawing No. A983119 ROHN Drawing No. SK-720305, R5 ROHN Drawing No. B-651264, R1 UNARCO-ROHN Drawing No. A790135, R2 Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10245, Sheet 1 Of 1 Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10242, Sheet 1 Of 2 Atlantic Orient Corporation Drawing No. 10242, Sheet 2 Of 2 At Six Sites R&D Project No. S029 RBA Project 7897 August 15, 2002 Submitted to: Keyspan, as agent for Long Island Power Authority Electric R & D, OPSZ, 2nd Floor 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 TABLE OF CONTENTS Date 7/27/00 7/27/00 9/29/00 9/29/00 1/20/99 8112102 6/6/92 6/6/92 10/28/92 1 /3/85 1 /5/99 4120/87 1/2/85 8/4/92 Title GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL, 100' GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL, 100' ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION 100' SSV TOWER ASSEMBLY for Atlantic Orient Corp. GENERAL NOTES for Atlantic Orient Corp. ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 6N277 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 7N499 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 8N377 ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR SSV SECTION 9N201 1ON322 SSV SECTION ASSEMBLY BRACING, GROUTING, & DRAINAGE DATA FOR MODEL SSV TOWERS STEP BOLT INSTALLATION DETAIL BOLT ASSEMBLY INSTALLATION TOWER BRACES (TYPICAL) TOWER I:EG (TYPICAL) TYPICAL TOWER LEG WITH CLIMBING CLIPS THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE. Ryan Beggs Associates, P.C. Troy, New York 12180 Ph.(518)272-6266 Ril FAX (518)272- 467 N ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT ly PLAN VIEW 0 LINE v -� ELEVATION VIEW V 'm - - REVISIONS REV. - - --. OESCPPf10N. - .. - —MTf APPROVED ---cMobLICTION REIFASfl i G O DETAIL A SCALE 1 : 8 TO TOWER AXIS ROHN ANCHOR BOLT SETTING TEMPLATE, SEE TOWER SPECS BARS, 12 INCHES ON CENTER, fH WAYS, TOP AND BOTTOM THE DRAWING ON THIS I PRINT AND INFORMA - I TION THEREWITH ARE PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP AND SHALL NOT BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. D 10 Ryan -Biggs Y Assocrk 121 0 P.C. [ TIDY, New York 12180 Ph. (518)272-0288 FAX (518)272-4487 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE'NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. PROJECT: _LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 01 1/2"-6 X 40" NCHOR BOLTS SBOLT CIRCLE: H i i DETAIL B SCALE 1 : 8 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED CAD GENERATED DRAWING. Atlantic Orient Corporation DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE TOLERANCES ARE: ,,,„—_ ,,,,,, --__._ @a,mR — A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY _ P.O. BOX I09T NORWICH. VT 05055 GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING N/A FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL S, 100' 0 10249 q NA USED ON. 15/50 SCALE 1 : 20 SHEET 1 OF 2 P RTV,-—DESCIPPil011 -- Ow1E wPPPOVFO - IPROWC710H PElEAfFI TOWER I DIMENSION A B C I D I E F G H 100 FT 12' 10" 11' - 1 5/16" 7'-4 7/8" 21' - 0" 6' - 0"1 0' - 81117 1 /21' 110 1 /411 NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS, A MAXIMUM WATER -CEMENT RATIO OF 0.55, AND 6 TO 8 PERCENT ENTRAINED AIR. 2. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A615. GRADE 60, 3, CONCRETE COVER ON REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE 3 INCHES. 4. FOR ANCHOR BOLT LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWER BEING USED. 5. FOR FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHOR BOLT TOLERANCES AND FOUNDATION NOTES, SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWER BEING USED. 6. SPLICES IN REINFORCEMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WELDING OF REINFORCING STEEL OR ANCHOR BOLTS IS NOT ALLOWED. 7. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL CODES AND TO THE LATEST VERSION OF ACI-318, "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE. 8. THE BASE OF THE FOUNDATION SHALL BE PLACED ON NATURAL UNDISTURBED SOIL. 9. IN THE PLAN VIEW THE AXIS OF THE TOWER SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF THE FOUNDATION, 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE SOIL CONDITIONS AT THE SITE ARE AT LEAST THE EQUIVALENT OF E.I.A. "NORMAL" SOIL (4000 PSF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE) AND THAT THE DEPTH OF THE FOUNDATION IS ADEQUATE FOR MAXIMUM FROST DEPTHS AT THE SITE. 11. CONTACT AOC BEFORE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR LATEST REV DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOUNDATION INFORMATION Tower Base loads (Ibsf) Single Leg Loads (lbsf) Vertical Loads (weight) Horizontal Loads (thrust) Overturning Moment (ft-Ibs) Horizontal Vertical Tension Compression 100 ft. SSV 168,000 15,300 24,400 1,810,000 14,600 158,000 Note: Loads calculated by spreadsheet at survival wind speed of 59.5 m/s (133 mph) 0 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE' IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. Ryan -Biggs Associates, P.C. Troy, New York 12180 PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. 10 Ph. (518)2724= FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272.4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 THE DRAWING ON THIS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. CAD GENERATED DRAWING. Atlantic: Orient Corporation . PRINT AND INFORMA - DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DO NOT MANUALLY UPDATE ! TION THEREWITH ARE A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC TOLERANCES ARE: owx wr Prmm ! ORIENT COOP AND SHALL P.O. BOX 1097 NORWICH, VT 05055 NOT BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT MITTEN CONSENT OF GENERAL FOUNDATION DRAWING ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. j a :.. NSA FOR EIA NORMAL SOIL 0, TOO- . L s r N/A U '' m — 10249 NA _ _ ! P� xor 1u.a PxwM16 USED ON: 15150 SCALE 1 : 20 SHEET 2 OF 2 m C 7 3 5 USE GALVANIZED END AT TOP ONLY 1 1/2" -6 X 40" ANCHOR BOLTS CERTIFIED ASTM A193, GR B7 GALVANIZED NUTS X 8 ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE (WITH 1/8" CENTER HOLE) FOUN ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE (WITH LARGE CENTER HOLE) NOTES: 1) SEE ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT OF EACH e TOWER SITE FOR TEMPLATE PART NUMBER AND ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION. 2) LOCATE TEMPLATE SUCH THAT SCRIBED LINE PASSING THRU CENTER HOLE& 2 CENTER PUNCH MARKS IS ON LINE TO TOWE AXIS 3) CHECK ANCHOR BOLT SIZE, NO., SPACING, AND BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER (TOP AND BOTTOM) AGAINST ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT BEFORE INSTALLATION 4) IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FOUNDATION CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT THE CORRECT ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE AND FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON RESPECTIVE SITE DRAWINGS ARE BEING USED. r c THE DRAWING ON .HI., PRINT AND INFORMA - TION THEREWITH ARE WARNING: A PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC AFTER ANCHOR BOLTSARE INSTALLED AND ORIENT CORP AND SHALL NOT BE USED IN WHOLE CONCRETE HAS TAKEN ITS INITIAL SET, ANCHOR OR IN PART WITHOUT BOLTS MUST NOT BE MOVED, BENT OR REALIGNED I WRITTEN CONSENT OF IN ANY MANNER. A NUT OR LOCKING DEVICE MUST ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. _ BE INSTALLED ON ALL ANCHOR BOLTS! 4 3 9 REVISIONS REV I DESCRIPTION DATE REV BY'. (PRELIMINARY RLS) A 111III111v", S .VANIZED NUTS X 8 _N 0.500 TYR I 1 R7N-BIC9e P.C. Troy.New York 121 k12190 re Ph. (518)2 72-2FAX (818)2724187 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FORCOMPLUINCE WITH THE 'NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIREPREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE' IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SM SITES. FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITYIKEYSPAN RBA PROJECT NO.7897 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED I CADGENDDUm DRAWING. DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES. ! DO NOT MIWIINI.Y UPDATE TOLERANCES ARE: '.pwN AM 9/29i SEE SHEET 2 DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 14 N/A Atlantic Orient Corporation A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY A P.O. BOX 1097 NORWICH. VT 05055 ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION N/A SUE MG. NO. PAID NO. A ( 10267 20172 USED ON ROHN i FqM C 1• 7 E E THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE'NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE' IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. Ryen•Blppe Auooletes, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12160 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272.8258 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 A Ar�ur n Dell TQ 4 3 2 1 — ----- REVISIONS - -- -- - --- — -- REV' DESCRIPTION DATE REV BY' (PRELIMINARY RLS) D FOUNDATION AND ANCHOR TOLERANCES: FOUNDATIONS I 1) (CONCRETE DIMENSIONS ± 1" 2) IDEPTH OF FOUNDATION 1+3 / -0 3) 1DRILLED FOUNDATIONS OUT OF PLUM 11.0 DEG 4} IREINFORCtNG STEEL PLACEMENT 'PER A.C.I. 301 5) 1PROJECTION OF EMBEDMENT 1± 1/8" THE DRAWING ON IHlti - PRINT AND Ii4FORMAWITH DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES, M NOT MANW0.IY MOATE Atlantic Orient Cor orQtlonl p TOWER FOUNDATION ARE TION THEREWITH ARE TOLERANCES ARE: owN — GROUT DETAIL PROPRIETARY TO ATLANTIC AM 9/29/00 cNR el A WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS COMPANY 'A A ORIENT CORP AND SHALL aPVD PH NOT BE USED IN WHOLE SEE SHEET 2 P.O. BOX 1097 NORWICH, Vf 0W55 OR IN PART WITHOUT N/A WRITTEN CONSENT OF ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE INSTALLATION 1 ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. nN6N ( N/A SRE owG. NO. PAIR NO. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING I USED ON ROHN TO A 10267 20172 SHEET 2 OF 2 1 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REvEW omRCOMPLIANCE WITH mE'NE «r s STATE UNIFORM FIREPREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" wEFFECT oAUGUST %z2 Ryan -Biggs a+_,P.C. m2ECI��ANDR� BUREAU WIND TURBINE_w_,_e2e GENERATOR AND TOWER gSIX SITES. Ph.*+72-6266FAX FOR: mmeaND�wRAmo� RSmN *°' ^® RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 General Notes 1. See individual section assembly drawings for part numbers and section assembly details. 2. Step bolts are provided on one leg only. 3. Refer to the latest revisions of the drawings shown in the bill of materials. 4. Pal nuts are provided for all tower bolts (see DWG'. A790135), Lock washers are provided for 1-1/2" anchor bolts. 5. The leg part number is stamped at the bottom of each leg of each section. 6. Work shall be in accordance with ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-F, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures". 7. Tolerance on tower steel height is equal to plus 1% or minus 1/2%. 8. Purchaser shall verify the installation is in conformance with local, state, and federal requirements for obstruction marking and lighting. 9. Tower orientation to be determined by others. 10. Step bolts with ROHN-LOC safety device are provided for climbing the entire tower height. 11. The purchaser shall verify that actual site soil parameters meet or exceed EIA "normal" soil parameters. 12. Numbers shown in balloons denote item numbers in bill of material. 13. Tower grounding is to be provided by others, and shall meet all applicable codes. MATERIALS: 1) All materials shall be new and free from rust. 2) All Rolled Steel Plates, Shapes, and Bars shall be ASTM A 36. 3) All Steel Pipe shall be ASTM A 618, Grade III, meeting dimensions for Extra -Strong, Schedule 80 pipe. 4) All Bolts, Nuts, and Washers shall be High -Strength, ASTM A 325. 5) All Welding Electrodes shall be E70XX and in accordance with AWS. Revised 8/12/02, RBA, Added notes on Materials This drawing is the property of ROHN. It is not to be reproduced, copied, or traced in whole or in part without N our written consent. I R 0 H none sy I uate ITitle: General Notes I: LLK 01/04/99 for ed:I c1l / ATLANTIC ORIENT CORP. No.: THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 reRyan -Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York '12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 20' fil"ATION FL.ANW PLATE T(ON 1Typ) _x_sTrt. P,rve 7TE: ?ACES ARE PLACED V TOP TO BOTTOM ?DER GIVEN IN BILL r MATERIAL. BILL OF MATERIAL ITFJ/ JaMl PART NO, OeX*IPTIDN 1 2 V85M LEG PIPE 4 E.H 2 1 V35665 STEP LEG PIPE 4 E.H 3 6 VB1122 DIAG. BRACE (L 2=3/16) 4 6 V91123 DIAG. BRACE (L 2XW3/16) 5 6 VB1124 DIAG. BRACE (L 2X2X3/16) 6 6 VS1125 DIAG. BRACE (L 2X2X3116) 7 6 VB1126 DIAG. BRACE (L ZGmw/6) B 75 2100 M4 5/8- X 1 1,02" BQLT ASSY (BRACES 9 12 210069&4 1" X 4 I/4' BOLT ASSY (FLAIrI'i` s) �(v SlL-Q BOLTS DINS. AD. 1 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION P'LANGE PLATE SPREAD OFFSET I BEVEL TQP p 2rFzETOP I BOTTVV 16 REV. 2rvl3 I eAr So. Bar So. I 95A 1 2'9 li8" 1 4. 9 lib" 1. LEG P/N IS 2. PAL NUTS AI J. STEP BOLTS 4. FLANSE BQL 5. EACH SECTION. No.A Revision Descrl t/on A Dote ♦ Rev By ♦ Ckd B ♦ Appd B THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RO N. IT IS TT TO BE REPRODLCED. COPIED OR TRACED IN *1CILE OR D H N IN PART WITHOUT OL14 WRITTEN CONSENT. Soe/e: None By Date Title: ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR Drown: CSR 5114192 SSV SECTION Checked: V WAIN 6 494U2 fyM77 ��lG App. Eng.: IL App. So I as: #'b -' ORAWING. MD. : z w2 N J i N ,w-d a O�U) 0 U. w20 jr Q 3°0 LLJ ZU crFLLw Z<w wUnz cn0o =°o zZz 3wo �2— �=m U) p F �3a w z z m a Ui r Y_ zx� x 3u,rr o ¢ w �Wa mom 21 w LL0Qa 0w0 z zr g°-ico C9wCDO zWzz OCwOU w U 0 w a O 0:¢ Ix o� a 20' ELEYAMN FLAAKaE PLATE -! 1,3-} x I x v -(TiPttj4L� - zav LEST (TYP) �s_L�Bi - NOTE: BRACES ARE PLACED IN TOP TO SOTTCU ORDER GIVEN IN HILL OF MATERIAL. )$ BILL OF MATERIAL I7m Q Aw. PART AD. DEscRzprlol I 2 VGW7 LEG PIPE 4 E.14 2 1 VG567S STEP LEG PIPE 4 E.H 3 6 X71 DIAG.BRACE (LI-314 X 3/160) 4 6 X72 WAS. L 1-3✓4 X 3/16) 5 .6 X73 DIAG. SR4CE (L 1-3✓4 X 3/16) 6 6 X74 DIAG. BRACE (L I -3/4 X 3116) 7 6 X75 DIAG.BRACE (LI-314 X 3/16) B 75 2100293A 5/Bm X 1 112" BOLT AS'SY (BRACES) ♦ 9 12 21006WA I - X 4 1/4- BOLT ASSY (FLANSM) IG SSEp BOLTS OW. AD. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION FLANGE PLATE I SPREAD OP OFFSET I BEVEL rMmw m AMU wlm. T7p I Bormu --- --- z gIW- I WA I X slgo: I SSA I 4' 9 /AF 1 6'-9 /Ar No.AL Revision Description A Date ALRev ByAk Ckd ByAAppd B THIS DRAWING Is E . E PROPERTY RA Rl/F/V. BE REPRQOCCID, COPIED QIR 777ACED IN PART WITHMJT OUR WRITTEN COAfSVrT. IT WI IS q IN WtiaLE R 0 H NTO Scale: None By Date Title: ASSEMBLY SSV DETAILS CTIOW �� FOR Drawn: CSR 5114192 Checked: U 6 4 92 App. Eng.:G vwtlo 2 Ap . Sales: & -}.- 4rr 7 1GM44wlm NO.: z UO N J i N �ILI IL 0W �- 00 LL C=7 LL �0 jr a � yz0 Lu ZU w x ~- LL z w u - U00 ) =�0 ZWiE z iw_Z— = m � O ¢ Z Q m (L �Ui} ~ Y_ zx� x 363E QQO w MW moEr w a00 LL Q LL 0 zoz'� (n ul m UwC�O zWzz 000U w U 0 w a. 0 K¢ ct a OLLir U i i .. TOWER AXIS I FLANSE • • PLATE 1 PLAN 20f ELEVATION ES (%P) " - a-- Pc - RACES ARE PLACED W TOP TO BOTTOM VIDER GIVEN IN BILL F MATERIAL. t8 BILL OF MATERIAL Vj aJAN. PART NO. DESCRIPTION 1 2 VG694 ILEG (4 EH PIPE) 2 1 VG5845 IsTEp LEG (4 Em PIPE) 3 6 X81 DIAG. BRACE (L 1-3/4 X 3/16) 4 6 X82 DIAG. BRACE (L 1-3✓4 X 3/16) 5 6 X83 DIAG. BRACE (L 1-3/4 X 3/16) 6 6 X04 DIAG. BRAGS (L 1-3/4 X 3/16) 7 60 1 210029GA I 5%8 X 1-1 /2 BOLT ASSY 8 12 1 210069GA I I X 4-112 BOLT ASSY MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION FLANGE PLATE SPREAD TOP BOTTQII TOP BOTTOM OFFSET BEVEL P/N I SIM IP/N NVA 9.9 9.5 9. 958 6. 9-Ur B'-10- 1. 2. 3. 4. GEAERAL. NOTES D AT BOTTOM OF EACH LEG O< EACH SECTIDN- No.♦ Revision Descrl tion ♦ Dote ♦ Rev B ♦ Ckd ByAAppd E THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY CiF' ROHN. IT IS flT R0 H N TO BE REpRODLCED• COPIED OR TRACED IN W OLE IN PART WITHOUT OuR WRITTEN CONSENT. Scale: None By Dore Title: ASSEMBLY DETAILS FOR Drawn: JOU (0-27-92 SSV SECTION Checked: L/ ro�8- g 77 A . Eng.: --g Ano. Sales: PM /0-1 '9Z ORAWIn� W. A921513 z w0 N Ja. > N uj LLJ 20: (L OL� O LL (D w2Q omLLO 5; D w it z w wU)z NW133 le o =°0 zzz _ 3wo �3: o=m 0 I=�Q z a m a cn } ?�Y O my zxF O W Q IX W moIx w u-0Qaa 0 0 zoz� co c7wc7o zWzz O0OV w U 0 w a a aM C7 a Towee 49S FLANGE PLATE PLAN BILL OF MATERIAL 1 4.eT /VO• I aFSCe1Rr1CW Doc: No. AW z wo N J i Lj N 0 a - a Ow� oLLcD LL2Q 3:!LO jzU wQw LL LL z w wviz a) o =0}O Z W Z z_ Qwo it = m � o �3¢ Z Q m a �Nm ~ - Yrn z x x WQ0 w wa in w 0 F UQOLL ❑mo JO F Jcco N rj) ti O w o d Z Z Z w O CD w U 0 w w a o Of¢ (a OLLIr U a RP o 'e TOWER AXIS r FLANGE e o PLATE e o o e PLAN 20' / 22XZ1ZX/G rm1c.-4LS BILL OF MATERIAL IITEMIOUAN.I PART NO. I DESCRIPTION I OWS. NO. I 2 VG666 IBASE LEG (P 5 EH1 I VG6665 I STEP BASE LEG (P 5 EH) .6 V8122 lorAG. BRACE (L2.50 X .19") 6 VS123 DIAG. BRACE (L2.50 X .19") 6 VS124 OIAG. BRACE (L2.50 X .19") 45 210029GA BRACE BOLT ASS'Y (.63 X 1.50") 12 250031 ILOCK WASHER (1-1/2") 16 5/BSTEP I STEP BOLTS N/A MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ;ECTION FLANGE PLATE I SPREAD EG (TYP) TOP BOTTOM S'� A-SjR, Pipe OFFSET BEVEL SIZE P/N I P/N TOP BOTTOM ----- 3.3'STD zi .5 95C x•1.5" 10--10" 12--10 DOTE: )RACES ARE PLACED 'N TOP TO BOTTOM ADER GIVEN IN BILL 1F MATERIAL. GENERAL NOTES 1. LEG P/N 15 STAMPED AT BOTTOM OF EACH LEG OF' EACH SECTION. 2. PAL NUTS ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL TOWER BOLTS. 3. STEP BOLTS ARE PROVIDED ON ONE LEG OACY. 4. -- — BOLT LAYOUT FOR CORRECT SIZE AI 5. BEVEL FOR FLANGE PLATES IS FOR ONLY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ANCHOR BOLTS. PLATES No.A Revision Description A Date A Rev By 1 Ckd B ♦ Appd B THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHN. IT IS NOT BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR TRACED IN WHOLE OR R O H N. TO IN PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT. Scale: NONE By Date Drawn: LLK 12128198 1ON322 U SSV SECTION ASSEMBLY Checked: S/1- CI O9 I App. Eng.: Parent File: DWG. NO. : SHEET I OF I REV. z wLD r N zzo J i N Ld a OW� 0 LL LL Q K ?LL0 W_Z WWw IrQa z W ul wz in U)00 =>-0 ZZZ Q Wu jr MD o m =0 �3a z m a a) } ZXF � N5 QQO W X Is W Q mom w ¢za O<0 z z r, o C.9wC70 ZZZZ 000V W U 0 W W n a x Om EL ax 6 a THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 -Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE reRyan Troy, New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 Ryan -Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. 19 Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 ASSEMBLY BOLT INSTALLATION: _ ALL TOWER ASSEMBLY.BOLTS ARE TO BE INSERTED OUT AND/OR UP (I.E. WITH NUTS AND PAL NUTS ON OUTSIDE OF TOWER FACE AND/OR ON TOP OF FLANGE PLATES) UNLESS PROHIBITED BY LACK OF CLEARANCE ALL ASSEMBLY AND ANCHOR BOLTS ARE TO BE TIGHTENED IN ACCORDANCE WTPH ANSVEIA-222-E SECTION 1.1.3.2 - (WHERE HIGH -STRENGTH BOLTS ARE USED FOR BEARING -TYPE CONNECTIONS, AS A MINIMUM, THE BOLTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED TO A,, SNUG TIGHT" CONDITION AS DEFINED IN THE NOVEMBER 13,1985, AISC, "SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING ASTM A325 OR A490 BOLTS".) FLAT WASHERS ARE TO BE INSTALLED WITH BOLTS OVER SLOTTED HOLES. CAUTION: DO NOT OVER-TORQUEI GALVANIZING ON BOLTS, NUTS, AND STEEL PARTS MAY ACT AS A LUBRICANT, THUS OVER -TIGHTENING MAY OCCUR AND MAY CAUSE BOLTS TO CRACK AND SNAP OFF. nL h= INSTALLATION PAL NUTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AFTER NUTS • ARE TIGHT AND WTTH EDGE LIP OUT. (SEE PICTURE) PAL NUTS NOT REQUIRED WHEN rr ' SELF-LOCKING NUTS ARE PROVIDED. ,Pz UPGRADE FOR -E, 8 D _RI... UPGRADE FOX EIA REV. D .. ._.___....... - I229-8 29-8 PHTif1HD , No. Revision Description No. ABY Unarco-Rohn Division of Unarco industries. Inc. Tifle ,BOL T ,4sszl IBzxllNSTA�z--vl-lt9eI/ - Scale -N40NE Drawn by - , _ Dale Checked by_/ .. Oslo Approved by . 7r- Dole S y5 Approved by Production Date IApproved by Unless otherwise specified, dimensions are given in manes. Tolerances Decimals Fractions Angles t t .t Material Finish Weight roperty of Unerco-Rohn. it is not to be or traced in whole or in part without our Sales .Date Orowlrtp Number ,t 7.901%gIL ... e. y.}• N. J�y.a.i by fi:. ".11 1•� ;tlr •. '. ic• S:>.e M. Yd�.... THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 reRyan -Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 IWIY�. THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 10 Ryan -Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITYIKEYSPAN FAX (518)272-4467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 04A] N NrJTES_l_!_---- ,J� V! 11] O ]3se 11 ALL OIMESIONS MEASURED FROMBOTTOMRAN�VATE, B- seY u8 Ye�aw DATUM A_ rrp,,A ^wa) f30 1} PART NUMBERS MUST BE STAMPED OMTO =asf osP_nm•rx e _ 6 SIDE OF BOTTOM RANGE PLAIE T I U3L RANGE PLATE TyPItgRANGE. 5MALL BE CENTERED ABOUT PIPE <7FF SET RJWGE PLAiE YP AXIS. 5 ��µdtC B4(9N?ol)_BS(IoN322) 4�SEc 10242 SµEET Z+2 Faz tacraj�oN n ST<p CLPs oN 5� 5. Kim A� Fi e (T IwL� %' " Les (Tj p.) fig' A 240.30" CTypP�<+Li 241.29��' B3(8N3Tl� wawwr A=rzrs RANGE PLATE DETAIL MENEWTZ no . • ; A ° M feY111tID Q IIt IPvw ►1C1R/+M A4 tIWMfYR10 /JM�•C Oef9Q U' .'ff't AH'i 1 Yell WI Y lypM pxOlf OIM t)t�Y•IMdI• .amen yr•1W o �qMK OeeT' �t- M. • - • (rypllC�l) ISOMETRIC DETAIL FOR CLARIFICATION DG&Wmmoa.••.c Atlantic OTIeM CoTPcru*m rID.eu IOl yy p•N �e =*am toaeeeM (Typ,cfaL - — Z O N i N DELI EL S0� 0 IL (� lL2 D �� O V DU w LL QLL Z w wcoz CO Y- mW =°o ZWZ z_ two 0 = In ♦_- o H � Q Z Q m a m�Pn ~ w �x Zx Q Q O w�0 FWD ca w W CE O H Q O LL a 0,0 ZOZP- gF- g co U3 Ow00 Z IZZZ OU OOV w U O w IY n. O Ir Q as aW U a T9:5T Z09Z�L0 3WI1 M IL POG9 6b9 Z08_N011d30-1 A j 0 L a S F its 'N l t THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE "NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE" IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 15, 2002 Ryan -Biggs Associates, P.C. PROJECT: LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU WIND TURBINE Troy, New York 12180 GENERATOR AND TOWER AT SIX SITES. Ph. (518)272-6266 FOR: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/KEYSPAN FAX (518)272-,1467 RBA PROJECT NO. 7897 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority - Osprey's Dominion #5432V and 5430SE SCTM Parcel #1000 - 75-1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY'S r APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE in I Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 • • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of Long Island Power Authority #5432V and 5430SE Osprey's Dominion SCTM Parcel #1000 - 75-1-20-20.1 and 20.2 X MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY'S APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE The Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") submits this memorandum in further support of its applications to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a special exception pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-31(b)(6) and a height variance pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-32 and in response to the March 22, 2004 Memorandum of Scott DeSimone in opposition to LIPA's applications. THE APPLICATION The approvals LIPA seeks are necessary for it to construct a 125 foot high wind turbine on the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, located at 44075 Main Road in Peconic (SCTM # 1000-75-1-20.1 and 20.2) (the `Project"). The Project is part of an alternative energy demonstration project undertaken by LIPA in coordination with the Long Island Farm Bureau. The property, which is zoned Agricultural -Conservation, totals 50.84 acres. The proposed location of the wind turbine is on Block 1, Lot 20.1, which is 4.64 acres in size and is already improved with a winery. Two acres of that block and lot are available to be dedicated to the requested special exception public utility structure use. KU.23291171 r� u LIPA, through its agent, KeySpan Electric Services L.L.C., has entered into a 20-year lease with the owner of the Osprey's Dominion Vineyards property, which permits LIPA to use an approximately 25-by-35 foot piece of land necessary for the construction of the wind turbine. • LIPA has also been granted an easement necessary to run the underground wiring from the wind turbine to a nearby distribution line. LIPA will construct and operate the wind turbine and be responsible for its maintenance during the term of the lease. In August 2003, LIPA gave written notice to both the Town of Southold Planning Board and the ZBA of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 8 ECL §8-0101 et seMc . and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 6 NYCRR § 617.1 et seq. ("SEQRA"). Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA assumed lead agency status and directed its consultant, AKRF, Inc., to prepare an Environmental Assessment ("EA") analyzing all of the potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed wind turbine. That EA was delivered to the Planning Board and ZBA in October 2003. The EA analyzed the potential impacts of the wind turbine on land use, zoning and community facilities, historical and archeological resources, visual resources, natural resources, hazardous materials, waterfront revitalization, infrastructure, traffic, air quality, noise and environmental justice, and analyzed potential construction and cumulative impacts. The EA reveals that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the wind turbine. On the contrary, the wind turbine will benefit the environment in that, over a 20-year period, it will eliminate the use of 160,000 gallons of fuel oil or 22.6 million cubic feet of natural gas and will eliminate the emission of approximately 1,200 pounds of carbon monoxide, 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 2,600 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 240 pounds of particulates. 2 KU 233911 ] 3 In January 2004, the Planning Board provided LIPA with comments on the EA prepared by its consultant, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC. In response to those comments, LIPA revised the EA in March 2004. Among the revisions to the EA is a "Visual Resources" analysis, which . was modified extensively so that it would follow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy (DEP-00-2, July 31, 2000) entitled "Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts." This analysis examined the potential for significant adverse visual impacts from sensitive aesthetic and visual resources. As explained more fully in the EA, potential visual impacts were assessed based on three field visits to the Project site and surrounding study area and a balloon test conducted on February 27, 2004 to determine locations from which the proposed facility would be visible. In addition, the EA includes photographs taken to depict typical views from the proposed wind turbine and photosimulations that superimposed the proposed wind turbine in the photographs showing existing conditions. The balloon test and the photosimulations were taken in the winter time, when the trees were leafless and the proposed turbine would be most visible. The detailed analysis clearly demonstrated that that while the proposed turbine would be visible or partially visible from various segments of the roadways, it is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on the visual character of the study area, which includes Main Road and Peconic Lane. Revised EA, p. 2-26. In addition to the inclusion of a visual impact analysis, the revised EA also contains additional information to supplement the noise impact analysis included in the October 2003 EA. Specifically, the revised EA includes (1) design specifications for the proposed wind turbine, which has been designed as a low noise emission turbine, (2) a new figure 2-10, which depicts the location of the proposed wind turbine and the noise monitoring location, and (3) a table (Table E) that predicts noise level calculations. See Revised EA, pp. 2-33 to 2-39. 3 K 3 2329117 D Based on the recommendation of its consultant, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, that the revised EA adequately addressed all of its comments, the PlanningBoard signed gned off on the revised EA. A copy of the March 11, 2004 Nelson, Pope & Voorhis letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." On March 9, 2004 LIPA, as SEQRA lead agency, determined based on the Environmental Assessment Form, the Environmental Assessment dated October 2003 and the revised Environmental Assessment, that the proposed wind turbine would not have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. Copies of the March 9, 2004 Negative Declaration are March 15, 2004 Notice of Negative Declaration are attached hereto as Exhibit `B." The ZBA hearing on this matter was opened on December 18, 2003 and was adjourned until February 26, 2004. The hearing was continued to March 18, 2004, at which time Scott DeSimone, a member of the public, expressed his opposition to the proposed Project. At the request of Mr. DeSimone, the hearing record was left open for written submissions only until April 5, 2004. This memorandum responds to Mr. DeSimone's written comments. A. REFERRAL TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING BOARD According to Mr. DeSimone, the subject property adjoins a New York State highway and, thus, the application must be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission ("SCPC"). In his Memorandum in Opposition, Mr. DeSimone reminds the ZBA that absent such a referral, any variance granted by the ZBA would be void. Memorandum in Opposition dated March 22, 2004 ("Opp. Mem."), p. 2. Mr. DeSimone's argument, however, does not take into account the ZBA's procedures for making such referrals. The ZBA does not refer applications to the SCPC until after it has made a determination. Therefore, the ZBA's determination, absent a referral to the SCPC at this time, will not render the ZBA's determination void. Moreover, the 2 KL1132911 ] Planning Board, which has before it LIPA's application for site plan approval, has made a referral to the SCPC. B. LIPA'S APPLICATION IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH SEQRA Mr. DeSimone opposes the application, in part, because "LIPA has declared itself lead agency to perform the environmental review on its own project." See Opp. Mem., p. 3. Mr. DeSimone argues (without the benefit of any legal authority to support his position) that under no circumstances "should an applicant proposing development be able to declare themselves lead agency when it is required to seek relief before another agency." Id. (Emphasis added). Contrary to Mr. DeSimone's opinion, SEQRA does, in fact, permit LIPA to declare itself lead agency. Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, LIPA has state agency status. See Public Authorities Law §1020-c(1). SE;QRA requires that the agency principally responsible for approving or funding or undertaking a particular action (the "lead agency") determine whether that action may result in significant adverse environmental impacts before it approves, funds or undertakes that action. See 6 NYCRR § 617.2(u). Because LIPA is the agency primarily responsible for funding and undertaking the project, it is an appropriate agency to assume lead agency status. Moreover, LIPA adhered to the proper procedures for declaring itself lead agency. SEQRA provides that when an agency proposes to directly undertake, fund or approve a Type I or Unlisted action undergoing coordinated review with other involved agencies, it must, as soon as possible, transmit Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") completed by the project sponsor to any involved agencies and notify them that the lead agency must be agreed upon within 30 calendar days of the date the EAF was transmitted to them. 6 NYCRR §617.6(b)(3). Any agency with approval authority over a particular project is an "involved 5 KL3.2329117 3 n u agency" that may vie to act as Lead agency for purposes of conducting the required SEQRA • review. In August 2003, LIPA provided the Planning Board and the ZBA with Part I of the EAF • and notified both of its intent to act as "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental review of the proposed wind turbine project pursuant SEQRA. Having received no objection in response to such notice, LIPA appropriately assumed lead agency status. Accordingly, LIPA's status as lead agency for this project is entirely appropriate and in compliance with SEQRA. C. LIPA IS ENTITLED TO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE IT SEEKS For the ZBA to grant a height variance, it must engage in a balancing test whereby it weighs the "benefit to the applicant" against the "detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community." In balancing the needs of the applicant against those of the community, Town Law § 267-b requires the ZBA to consider whether: (a) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; (b) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than the variance; (c) the requested variance is substantial; (d) the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (e) the alleged difficulty was self- created. To be entitled to an area variance, an applicant is not required to meet each of the statutory considerations. Rather, a zoning board must balance these factors in determining whether the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community should the variance be granted. LIPA has clearly shown through the in-depth EA, that there will be no m K 3 2329117 3 n detrimental impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the community as a result of the • requested height variance. In fact, as described above, the proposed wind turbine actually will benefit the environment by reducing the use of fuel oil and natural gas as well as reducing • particulate emissions. 1. The Project Will Not Create an Undesirable Change in the Character of the Neighborhood Nor Will it Cause a Detriment to Nearby Properties Mr. DeSimone alleges that the proposed wind turbine will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, will cause a detriment to nearby properties along Peconic Lane and to the east of Mr. DeSirrione's office on Main Road, and will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood due to visual and noise impacts. Opp. Mem., p. 4. The only evidence Mr. DeSimone submits in support of his position is: (1) his opinion that the turbine, coupled with two existing cell towers, will be an imposing site from the Main Road and (2) what he "imagines" the potential noise from the turbine would be when the winds reach 45 to 50 knots. As will be shown below, Mr. DeSimone's opinions are merely that -- opinions that are not supported by any factual data, scientific authority or any explanatory information. Moreover, Mr. DeSimone's bald assertions fail to contradict the comprehensive visual impact and noise analysis set forth in the revised EA, which clearly demonstrates that the proposed turbine will have neither a visible nor audible impact to nearby property. In the face of the in-depth impact analysis set forth in the revised EA, Mr. DeSimone's opinions are not enough to support a finding that the proposed turbine might have a visual or noise impact. See WEOK Broadcasting Coro v Planning Bd. of the Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 583 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1992). 7 KU 2329117 J 71 In WEOK, the petitioner submitted a site plan for proposed radio transmission towers. The application was denied based upon the alleged visual effect of the project upon the Franklin D. Roosevelt ("FDR") homestead in nearby Hyde Park. The petitioner filed an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") which considered the towers' visual impact from nine locations, including the FDR homestead. The EIS concluded that there would be no visual impact from the homestead. The visual impact analysis from the FDR viewpoint was conducted in the spring, when the trees surrounding the proposed site were leafless. The planning board also retained an independent consultant to critique WEOK's draft EIS. The consultant found that petitioner had prepared "an in-depth analysis which utilized a professional and thorough methodology to objectively assess the visual impact" of the proposed project. Id. at 378, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 171. Nevertheless, the planning board denied site plan approval. The board based its negative decision primarily upon statements from community members, agencies and organizations that the study was flawed and that the towers "may" be visible from the FDR homestead. The Supreme Court annulled the planning board's determination and granted petitioner's application for site plan approval. The Court found that "nothing in the record other than generalized complaints voiced at public hearings contradicted [the report of the Town's consultant] or WEOK's visual study." Id. at 379, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 172. The Appellate Division affirmed and the planning board appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the planning board's determination was not supported by substantial evidence --substantial evidence being "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact"-- and, therefore, affirmed the lower court's ruling. Id. at 383, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 175 (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals found that petitioner's detailed visual impact analysis was made under the least desirable E K&2329117 3 L) conditions, when visibility of a tower radio transmitting facility would be greatest, and that it concluded that there would be no visual impact from the historic site. The Court further found that the planning board's contrary determination was based on comments and statements from community members and agencies that were at best mere conjecture and were not supported by any factual data, scientific authority or any explanatory information and, thus, such generalized community objections did not constitute substantial evidence. As in WEOK, Mr. DeSimone's unsubstantiated opinions do not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed wind turbine will create a visual impact from nearby properties or that there will be loud noises at certain wind levels. Thus, Mr. DeSimone's generalized complaints cannot support his allegations that the proposed wind turbine will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood and will cause a detriment to nearby property. Moreover, it should be noted that there have been no objections from adjoining property owners to the east of Mr. DeSimone's office or on Peconic Lane to the proposed wind turbine. Mr. DeSimone says that the lack of opposition is likely because residents do not know about the application. Opp. Mem., p. 8. However, where the ZBA is required to hold a public hearing, certain notice requirements must be followed. See Southold Code §§ 100-275 and 58-1. Among these notice requirements is the requirement that the applicant send notice to the owners of record of every property which abuts, and every property which is across from, any public or private street from the property included in the application. Such notice must be made by certified mail, return receipt requested and posted at least seven days prior to the date of the initial public hearing on the application and addressed to the owners at the addresses listed for them on the local assessment roll. Southold Code § 58-1(B)(2). In accordance with these requirements, LIPA mailed public notices regarding the ZBA hearing to all owners of land 0 KU 2329117 , • surrounding the proposed wind turbine on December 4, 2003 by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thus, contr ary rary to Mr. DeSimone's assertion, the adjoining property owners did have notice of the hearing, and ample opportunity to object. Lastly, Mr. DeSimone argues that the ZBA's determination should be mindful of the Town's interest in purchasing Peconic Lane School for development in conjunction with the adjoining recreation center as a Town pool and park. Opp. Mem., p. 4. However, at this point in time, the Town has not purchased such property and no preliminary or definitive plans have been developed. Thus, this speculative venture should have no bearing on the instant application. Nevertheless, the Peconic Lane School and the Town Recreation Center were both included in the half -mile study area analyzed in the revised EA. 2. The Benefit to Applicant Cannot be Sought by any Other Method The benefit that LIPA seeks is to demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation and the applicability of distributed energy sources, and to expand green sources of electricity on Long Island as a part of its Clean Energy Initiative program. In determining appropriate sites for the Project, LIPA engaged in a thorough site search, which is detailed in the revised EA, to find a suitable site. hi so doing, LIPA identified and studied approximately 45 different possible sites. Mr. DeSimone simply alleges that LIPA has not shown that the benefit it seeks can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance. In support of his argument, Mr. DeSimone identifies several sites that he believes LIPA can site the proposed turbine to minimize residential impacts. However, Mr. DeSimone's argument is based on several inaccuracies. First, Mr. DeSimone alleges that LIPA owns waterfront property all along the north shore of Suffolk County and other property slated for power plants in Shoreham and 10 KU_2329117 1 Riverhead, which could mitigate the placement of the wind turbine in residential areas. Opp. Mem., p. 5. However, the waterfront properties referred to by Mr. DeSimone are not owned by LIPA. Rather, the sites identified by Mr. DeSimone are owned by Keyspan and LIPA has no development rights to them. Second, Mr. DeSimone alleges that LIPA failed to identify the owner of the land north of the proposed site for the Project, toward the railroad tracks, to determine whether the owner would permit the proposed turbine. Opp. Mem., p. 7. This statement is also erroneous as Suffolk County has, in fact, purchased development rights attached to this property as part of its farm -preservation program to preclude uses other than farming. Mr. DeSimone also argues that LIPA has not submitted any scientific evidence or otherwise demonstrated that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to achieve its goal. Opp. Mem., p. 5. LIPA's initiative to demonstrate the feasibility of wind turbines for power generation simply cannot be conducted without a wind turbine. Table D of the revised EA contains design specification for the proposed wind turbine. The turbine, which is state of the art, is the recommended minimum height for wind turbines in this area of Long Island, as it is the minimum height necessary to capture the wind required to generate electricity. Thus, there are no other alternatives LIPA can seek to the requested height variance. However, as detailed in the EA, LIPA has conducted an exhaustive search to determine the most appropriate site for the proposed turbine and has performed a comprehensive assessment to ensure that the proposed Project will not create any adverse impacts. 3. While the Height Variance LIPA Seeks is Substantial and its Hardship Self- Created Neither is Fatal to LIPA's Application Mr. DeSimone alleges that LIPA's application should be denied because (1) the variance LIPA seeks is substantial and (2) LIPA's hardship was self created because it leased the property 11 K 2329I11- and purchased the wind turbine without considering the required height variance. Opp. Mem., pp. 5-6. While the requested '90-foot exceedence of the permitted maximum height is substantial, the 125-foot height of the wind turbine is necessary so that the facility is high enough to capture the wind required to generate electricity. Nevertheless, the "substantiality of a variance cannot be judged solely by the percentage deviation from the mandated requirements of a zoning regulation. Instead, the overall effect of granting relief is the relevant inquiry." N.Y. Town § 276-b cmt. at 334 (2004); See Kleinhaus v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Cortlandt, 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37 (col. 3) (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 1996) (Although a variance application to erect a 120-foot amateur radio antenna was considered substantial with respect to the applicable 35-foot maximum, the Court determined that substantiality is relative and could not be gauged in the abstract, thus, although the Court credited the board's finding that the variance was substantial, the Court concluded that the deviation only becomes relevant if it relates to an adverse effect in the neighborhood), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." Despite the substantiality of the variance sought, LIPA's comprehensive EA has clearly demonstrated that the requested variance, if granted, will not create any adverse effects to the neighborhood. Therefore, the quantity of the variance sought is inconsequential. Moreover, while LIPA's leasing of the property and purchasing of the wind turbine without considering the height variance could possibly be construed as a self-created hardship, it is not fatal to LIPA's application. While the self-imposed nature of a hardship is a factor, it is not determinative. De Sena v. Village Bd of Zoning Appeals of the Inc Village of Hempstead, 45 N.Y.2d 105, 408 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1978). Thus, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created is a consideration that shall be relevant to the decision of the ZBA, it shall not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance. Kleinhaus 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. at 37. In fact, courts have held that 12 KU 232911 J 3 as long as there is no evidence that granting a variance will not have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood or adversely impact the physical and environmental conditions, area variances may be granted despite the substantiality of the variance sought and the self- created hardship. See Easy Home Tigwam v. Trotta, 276 A.D.2d 553, 714 N.Y.S.2d 509 (2d Dep't 2000) (The Court held that the zoning board's denial of an area variance was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence because, even though the applicant's difficulty was self-created and the requested variance was arguably substantial, there was no evidence that granting the variance would have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood or adversely impact physical and environmental conditions, and the board acknowledged that there was no feasible alternative to the proposed plans); Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 633 N.Y.S. 2d 259 (1995) (The Court held that the granting of an area variance to allow the demolition of a boathouse; and construction of a larger boathouse was rational and was not arbitrary and capricious even though the difficulty was self-created and the variances sought substantial, as the record supported the zoning board's findings that there would be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, that the variance would have minimal impact on nearby properties, and that no alternatives to the grant of the area variance existed). LIPA has provided substantial evidence to show that granting its requested height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and would have minimal or no impact on nearby properties. The revised EA provides an in-depth analysis of various potential impacts, including visual resources, noise, traffic, community facilities and natural resources. Thus, despite the: height of the variance, there will be no undesirable effects and thus, LIPA's variance should be granted. 13 KU 2329117 3 D. LIPA IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 100-263, in order to grant a special exception, the ZBA must determine that: (a) the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district in which the proposed use is to be located or in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; (e) the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general; and (f) all proposed structures are readily accessible for fire and police protection. In making such determinations, the ZBA must consider a number of factors set forth in Zoning Ordinance § 100-264, including the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the suitability of the district for the location of the proposed use, and whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed use. Mr. DeSimone simply argues that the special exception should not be granted because the experimental project, "a power generation facility," is not in harmony with general purposes or intent of the zoning ordinance or use district in which it is located and, thus, will likely adversely affect the reasonable permitted uses in adjacent use districts and the Town's intentions to develop a pool adjacent to the site. Opp. Mem., p. 6. Again, Mr. DeSimone provides no support for these allegations. The revised EA discusses at length how the proposed wind turbine site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and agricultural land uses dominate the land within 1/2 mile from the site. Windmills 14 KU 2329117 3 have historically been part of the farm environment and the wind turbine constitutes a historically consistent structure that conforms to existing farm uses. The proposed site is suitable for the proposed use, as it is flat and provides exposure to prevailing winds and is located at least 1/2 mile away from the closest community facilities and would create only minimal visual impacts and insignificant noise impacts. Moreover, specially permitted uses in the Agricultural -Conservation zoning district, include, among other things, "public utility rights of way as well as structures and other installations necessary to serve areas within the town ...... Id. § 100-31(B)(6). The inclusion of a particular use as permitted in a zoning district is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. North Shore Steakhouse, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeals of the Inc Village of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243, 331 N.Y.S.2d 645 (1972); Twin County Recvclinp Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 N.Y.2d 10001002, 665 N.Y.S.2d 627, 628 (1997). Thus, the fact that the Code specifically allows for a special permit for a public utility structure means that the legislature (i.e. the Town Board) has determined that, under the prescribed circumstances, such a facility is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code. The revised EA also demonstrates that the proposed wind turbine will not interfere with any permitted uses, community facility, historic resources or the neighborhood character. Mr. DeSimone's argument that the proposed turbine could interfere with the Town's intent to develop a pool is entirely speculative at this juncture, as the Town has not yet developed any such plans. It is ludicrous to deny an application based on plans that may never pan out. Based on these facts, more fully discussed in the EA, the erection of the wind turbine will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or the orderly and reasonable 15 K 23291173 use of permitted or specially permitted uses in adjacent zoning districts. Nor will the wind turbine interfere with existing uses or the development of adjacent properties or zoning districts. There will be no adverse effects on health and safety and, as the wind turbine is consistent with historical agricultural uses, the use will be in harmony with and promote the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the wind turbine meets the standards for granting a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, LIPA's application for a for a special exception and height variance should be granted. Dated: New York, New York April 5, 2004 Respectfully submitted, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Attorneys for the Long Island Power Authority By: A veuz= Ric and G. Leland 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212)715-9100 Of counsel: Toni L. Finger, Esq. L KL12329117 3 i Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, Newyork 11971-0959 AM: Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse -Chair Dear Ms. Woodhouse: NELSON, POPE 8 110ORMIS LLC CNVIMDNMENTIL . PLIN N.N. IONOIILTING CMAr"S A V"HA CEP.ACP..1RfNUA J. KOSRGEF, PE • V10" 9M. PE JOSEPH R IiWrA Pr - Rmw G. KLOCK Ja.. P.E. P VL M. PACZ P.W.. ThoM r. Lsea PE. March 11, 2004 I J MAR 1 5 2004 Re: L A Wind Turbine NP&V# 03434 At the request of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Planning Board) we have reviewed the revised and resubmitted Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by AKRF Environmental and Planning Consultants (AKRF) and dated March, 2004 for the above referenced project, pursuant to the State .Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), 6WCRR Part 617.9(ax2)(i). Previously AKRF submitted an initial draft of the EA in October, 2003 and based on our review of the document and the SEQRA regulations we believed that the document was insufficient. as a decision -making tool and submitted several comments to be addressed in a letter dated January 19, 2003. AKRF has responded to these comments in a letter dated March 5, 2004 and prepared a revised EA. Based on our review of the resttbtnission we find that it adequately addresses all of the previous deficiencies of the initial document and recommend that the Planning Board accept the EA as complete to be used for the purpose of rcachin determination g a erntinationofsignificance. Thank you for the oppotttmity to review this document and please call if you have any questions Very truly yours, N}NE�LSON/, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC Eric Arnesen, RPG Project MaWer �RrlesMa 07v Iea'U ge�-Ba G PN (6 1) 4w 6B20 LVW .NELBONPOPe.COM TOTAL P.02 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially -large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. - THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: E Part 1 M Part 2 Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: OA. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' © C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. 'A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Site selection and installation of a wind turbine generator in Town of Southold, New York. Long Island Power Authority Edward Grilli Action Name of Lead Agency Chief of Staff Printor Type Name of Res onsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) r� y 90041 ate e Page 1 of 21 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non -Significance Date: March 15, 2004 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA"), as lead agency, has determined the proposed action described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Southold Wind Turbine Project SEQR Status: Type 1 _ Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: _Yes X No Description of Action: The construction and operation of a 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Southold, New York. Location: Osprey's Dominion Vineyards, 44075 Main Road, Southold, New York, SCTM Section 75, Block 1, Lots 20.1 and 20.2. Reasons Supporting This Determination: A long form environmental assessment form ("EAF") was completed in October 2003. In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment ("EA") was prepared in October 2003 and revised in March 2004 to address comments provided by the Town of Southold Planning Board. A determination of significance was issued by LIPA on March 9, 2004. The EA and the revised EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project related to land use, community character, historic and archeological resources, visual resources, natural resources, hazardous materials, waterfront resources, infrastructure, traffic, air quality, noise, and construction. Based upon the EAF, the EA and the revised EA, LIPA has determined that the proposed project would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. For Further Information Contact Person: Edward J. Grilli Address: Long Island Power Authority 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone Number: (516) 719-9877 E-mail egrilli@lipower.org • • n J Page 2 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) New York Law Journal Volume 215, Number 58 Copyright 1996 by the New York Law Publishing Company Tuesday, March 26, 1996 Court Decisions Second Judicial Department Westchester County Supreme Court KLEINHAUS V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF CORTLANDT Justice Joan B. Lefkowitz Page 1 Petitioners contracted to purchase a residence in the Town of Cortlandt in 1993 at a time when the Zoning Code of the Town of Cortland had no height restriction applicable to free standing antennas (former 588-39[B1[21).. Prior to consummating the purchase, the Town amended its zoning laws to provide that in an R-40 (residential one acre) zone the maximum height allowed for residences is two and one-half stories or thirty-five feet (9307-17). The Table of Dimensional Regulations (§307-17) provides that the maximum height allowed for a free standing antenna is the same as for a principal structure in any residential zone, i.e., cannot exceed thirty-five feet. Petitioners have a six foot directional antenna on the roof of their home. Roof antennas may be of any height under the Zoning Code provided they do not cover more than twenty-five percent (25 percent) of the area of the roof (§307- 18[E1[21. Petitioner J. P. Kleinhaus is an amateur radio operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (hereafter "FCC"). Said petitioner applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals (hereafter the "ZBA") for permission to erect a one hundred twenty foot free standing antenna on his property with a wing span of twenty-four feet. The property consists of 58,432 square feet and is heavily wooded. The respondent held three public meetings on the application at which neighbors spoke; persons who have similar radio towers or antennas also spoke; the petitioners made submissions of documents and members of the ZBA conducted site inspections on the subject property and the surrounding area and also at six other locations where antennas exist in other communities. The ZBA treated the application as one for an area variance, a classification not contested herein by petitioners. On October 19, 1995 the ZBA made findings, set forth reasons and denied the application. Petitioners thereafter commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding to annul the determination. Petitioners contend that the Zoning Code restriction on free standing antenna height is facially invalid, or, alternatively, is invalid as Copyright � 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. hUp: //print. westlaw. corn/delivery. html?dest=atp&datai d=B 00558000000285600039921 OOBBO... 4/2/04 Page 3 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) applied and that the determination by the ZBA is arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. Page 2 On September 16, 1985, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling, known as PRB-1, partially codified at 47 CFR §97.15. The essence of PRB-]. is that amateur radio operators are important to the interests of the nation. Therefore, conflicts between amateur operators using radio antennas and restrictive zoning ordinances are to be avoided. On the other hand, the FCC recognized that local governments must address the concerns of all its citizens and if their interests are applied in an "even-handed" fashion (PRB-1, para. 24), they may affect amateur radio operators. Consequently, "a limited preemption policy is warranted" (ibid.). Nonetheless, regulations that preclude amateur communications "must be preempted" (ibid). The FCC Ruling went on to state that it would not "specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the prese mechanisms for special exceptions, variances or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve ... height of antennas based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose" (id., para. 25; 47 CFR § 97.15[e]). The FCC authorizes antennas up to two hundred feet in height, with approval necessary for those who wish to exceed that height limit (PRE-1, para. 3; 47 CFR §97.15[a]). Prior to proclamation of PRB-I, it was held that FCC preemption, such as it existed under former regulations, did not oust local governmental authorities from enforcing height requirements on antennas for amateur radio use. Matter of Presnell v. Leslie, 3 NY2d 384 (1957), rearg. den. 4 NY2d 1.046 (1958); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1985). The regulations of the FCC have the force of statutes. City of New York v. FCC, 486 US 57, 63-64 (1988). As such, the FCC regulations preempt local zoning laws to the limited extent provided in the regulations. Pentel v. City of Mendola Heights, 13 F.3rd 1261 (8th Cir. 1994); Bodony v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point, 681 F.Supp. 1009 (ED NY 1987); People v. Krimko, 145 Misc. 2d 822 (Just. Ct. Nassau 1989); see Matter of Marino v. Town of Ramapo, 68 Misc. 2d 44, 57-58 (Supreme Ct. Rockland 1971). In Pentel, supra, the Court summarized the statements of the FCC, the types of arguments advanced by petitioners in various cases and the -applicable requirements concerning height of amateur -radio antennas (pp. 1263-64): "The FCC was attempting to referee the tension between these interests when it issued PRB-I, in which it attempted 'to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters.- PRB-1 ¶22. After weighing local, federal, and amateur interests, the FCC issued a ruling that has a limited preemptive effect on local regulations. See PRB-1 ¶24. The federal courts that have addressed this ruling have upheld its preemptive effect.. See, e.g., Evans v. Board of County Comm is, 994 F.2d 755, 760-61 (10th Cir. 1993); Thernes v. City of Lakeside Park, Ky., 779 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Courts applying PRB-I have discerned two means by which PRE -I may preempt a local ordinance. First, the local regulation may be preempted on its face. The cityls Copyright m 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. http://print.west]aw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B0055800000028560003992100BB0... 4/2/04 Page 4 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) Page 3 zoning ordinance does not conflict on its face with PRE -I because it neither bans • nor imposes an unvarying height restriction on amateur radio antennas. See Evans v. Board of County Commis, 752 F.Supp. 973, 976-77 (D. Colo. 1990); Bulchis v. City of Edmonds, 671 F.Supp. 1270, 1274 (W. D. Wash. 1987). Second, PRB-1 also preempts a zoning ordinance that a city has not applied in a manner that reasonably accommodates amateur communications. See Evans, 994 F.2d at 761; MacMillan v. City of Rocky River, 748 F.Supp. 1241, 1246 (N.D. Ohio 1990). The FCC refused to specify a height below which local governments could not regulate, and instead declared that 'Local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local _ authority's legitimate purpose.' PRB-1 ¶25. Initially, we must discuss the extent to which this language requires municipalities to yield to amateur interests. Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interests against the federal government's interests in promoting amateur communications, see Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990); MacMillan, 748 F.Supp. at 1248, we read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do more - PRB-1 specifically requires the city to accommodate reasonably amateur communications. See Evans, 994 F.2d at 762-63. This distinction is important, because a standard that requires a city to accommodate amateur communications in a reasonable fashion is certainly more rigorous than one that simply requires a city to balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit a radio antenna. Application of this reasonable accommodation standard, however, does not require the city to allow the amateur to erect any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city 'consider[] the application, ma[k)e factual findings, and attempt [] to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant.' Howard v. City of Burlingame, 937 7.2d 1376, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991); see, e.g., Evans, 994 F.2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing to permit a crank -up tower, a shorter tower, or a tower located elsewhere); Williams, 906 F.2d at 997 (stating that the city suggested a limitation on the hours the antenna could be extended, and noting that the amateur could apply for a shorter antenna). Under this approach, a local regulation that impairs amateur radio communications is preempted as applied if the city has not crafted it 'to accommodate reasonably amateur communications while using the minimum practicable regulation [necessary) to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.' PRB-1 ¶25." In Pentel, the zoning ordinance limited the height of a radio antenna to twenty-five feet. Petitioner was using a 56.5 foot roof tower antenna but wanted to erect a free standing sixty-eight foot radio antenna. The city council denied her application but permitted her to continue to use the present antenna though it was in violation of the zoning ordinance. The Court held that the ordinance was not facially invalid as it did not ban antennas nor impose an unvarying height requirement (13 F.3rd at 1263). Other courts have held that: where the zoning ordinance provides for variance or special use permits and standards exist for the reviewing agency to follow, the zoning ordinance is not facially invalid even though it prohibits antennas beyond a certain height because a reviewable procedure exists. Evans v. Board of County Commr's, 994 F.2d 755 (loth Cir. 1993); Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1990); Bulchis v. City Copyright � 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. littp: //pri nt. westlaw. com/deli very. htm I?dest=atp&datai d=B 00558000000285600039921 OOBBO... 4/2/04 Page 5 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) Page 4 of Edmonds, 671 F.Supp. 1270 (W.D. Wash. 1987); see Matter- of Basile V. Town of . Brookhaven, 170 AD2d 1043 (4th Dep't 1991); cf. Cawley v. City of Port Jervis, 753 F.Supp. 128 (SDNY 1990); Village of Elm Grove v. PY, 724 F.Supp. 612 (E.D. Wis. 1989); VanMeter v. Township of Maplewood, 696 F.Supp. 1024 (D.N.J. 1968). At bar, the parties have charted their own procedure with respect to how the matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals as an apparent original case and not on appeal. Cullen v. Naples, 31 NY2d 818 (1972). Since the application has been treated as one for an area variance and the relevant provisions of the Town Law (Town Law §267-b[31) were considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the only remaining issue is whether application of the variance standards is consistent with PRB-1. Stated differently, is the height restriction on antennas in the Town of Cortland-s zoning ordinance invalid as applied? It seems that application of variance standards can occur consistently with PRB-l's concerns. 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law & Practice (3rd ed.), § 13:38; Matter of Basile v. Town of Brookhaven, supra, 170 AD2d 1043; see, 83 Am. Jur. 2d, Zoning & Planning, §488; 3 American Law of Zoning (3rd ed.), § 17.60; Ann. 81 ALR 3rd 1086 (1977) Zoning: Radio & Television Facilities (esp. §8, pp. 1094-96). The standard of review in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding is whether the action of the zoning authorities is illegal, arbitrary and capricious or is not supported by substantial evidence. Rice, Practice Commentaries to Town Law §267-c, p. 122 in 1996 Ann. Supp., McKinney's Consol. Laws of New York, Book 61 (Sections 190 to End). The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board even if compelling inferences to the contrary can be made. Matter of Doyle v. Amster, 79 NY2d 592 (1992). A determination is supported by substantial when the record shows evidence of relevant, probative and material proof that reasonable persons would accept as adequate to support an ultimate fact. People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 (1985); 300 Gramatan v. Human Riahts, 45 NY2d 176, 180 (1978); Matter of Party City v. Bd. of Appeals, 212 AD2d 618 (2d Dep't 1995). Prior to 1992 there was no general state law that deferred the criteria for review of use or area variances. The applicable statute, §267(5) of the Town Law, required that the ZBA consider "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships.', Case law filled the gaps by defining "practical difficulties" (e.g., Matter of Wilcox v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 NY2d 249, 255 119661) and "unnecessary hardship" (e.g., Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 76 [19391). In 1992, the Legislature specified what factors the ZBA must consider on use and area variance applications. Town Law §267-b (2), (3). As to area variances, the ZBA was instructed (Town Law §267-b[3)[b]): "In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the Copyright m 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BO055800000028560003992l OOBBO... 4/2/04 Page 6 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting • of the area variance." In Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 (1995) the Court of Appeals held that an application for an area variance need not establish under Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) "practical difficulties" as formerly required. Page 5 In applying the statutory criteria the ZBA found: (1) an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood would occur since the antenna would exceed the tree line and can be seen from adjoining properties; (2) the applicant could continue to use his present antenna; (3) the variance requested is too substantial, from thirty-five feet to one hundred and twenty feet; (4) the proposed antenna would have an adverse impact on the environment by reason of its visibility during the six-month period the trees are leafless and would have an "industrial' look, and (5) the difficulty was self-created since petitioners purchased the premises when the zoning ordinance prohibited free standing antennas to exceed thirty-five feet (unless, of course, a variance was granted). The Court finds that some of the ZBA's findings are not supported by the evidence. First, as to visibility, one board member observed that the balloon floated over petitioners property at one hundred and twenty feet during a site inspection was not visible from certain nearby areas. Additionally, next door neighbors did not object to the application and one actually supported it. Second, the fact that Mr. Kleinhaus makes good use of the existing antenna should not prevent him from attempting to maximize his ability to connect with other amateur ham operators throughout the world with whom he is presently unable to communicate with because of the inadequacy of his present antenna and the topography of the property. Pentel v. City of Mendola Heights, supra, 13 F.3rd 1261. Third, while the requested change is substantial it is also relative. We are measuring height. The difference proposed is really forty feet above the tree line. Petitioners could have sought a two hundred foot antenna but realistically proposed a smaller one that suits their purpose. Nevertheless, the change is substantial and the ZBA rightly considered it a factor. Fourth, the alleged environmental impact of visibility during the leafless season, while tied to the first finding, is a factor correctly found by the ZBA to be considered. Fifth, the self-created hardship is benign. Such a finding is not fatal in an area variance application. Perger v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 146 AD2d 698 (2d Dep't 1989); Rice, Practice Commentaries to Town Law §267-b, p. 115 in 1996 Ann. Supp., McKinney's Consol. Laws of New York, Book 61 (Sections 190 to End). To the extent that the last finding suggests that petitioners build an antenna closer to their home on higher ground or on their roof, the record shows that neither suggestion is feasible because of the length and type of guy wires that must be used. Based upon the foregoing, the first finding is not supported by substantial evidence; the second finding is also unsupported by any evidence as the ZBA turned a negative on its head - petitioners established that they cannot communicate by their present radio antenna as they desire and there is no evidence to the contrary; the third finding is correct but begs the question as the deviation only becomes relevant if it relates to an adverse effect in the neighborhood; the fourth finding is credited and supported by common sense and on site inspections; and the fifth finding, while supported, is neutral. This leaves us with a finding supported by substantial evidence that during part Copyright 0 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. http: //print.westlaw.comldelivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=B O055800000028560003 9921 OOBBO... 4/2/04 u Page 7 of 7 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) 3/26/96 N.Y.L.J. 37, (col. 3) of the year the antenna will be visible to others and may have an "industrial" look. While this finding standing alone might be sufficient in the ordinary zoning case to withstand analysis and support the ZBA determination, it cannot do so in the context of limited FCC preemption. This is so because the application of area variance criteria "must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose" (PRB-1, para. 25; 47 CFR §97.15[el). The effect of the ZBA determination is to bar antennas whose height greatly exceeds thirty-five feet even where such antennas are needed to fulfill the amateurs radio goals. But a delicate balancing process is required on amateur antenna applications. The licensed ham operator would like the ability to the full use of his amateur license (i.e., make contact with the whole world), while the zoning authorities are rightly concerned about visible adverse impacts. This does not mean that environmental the amateur ham operator receives permission to erect the antenna of his choice nor does it necessarily mean that the ZBA can deny the application with impunity. At bar, neither side really made an effort to accommodate each other's interests. Pentel v. City of Mendola Heights, supra, 13 F.3rd 1261; MacMillan v. City of Rocky River, 748 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ohio 1990). For example, perhaps petitioners could utilize a retractable antenna that would exceed the tree line height only in the evenings and use a wingspan of lesser dimension and apply a color that blends in with the surrounding environment, including buffers to mask the ground. the guy wires on In view of the foregoing, the determination is annulled as irrational, arbitrary and capricious. However, rather than declare the zoning ordinance invalid as applied, the Court remits the matter to the ZBA for further proceedings to weigh whether it can reasonably accommodate petitioners' request or a modified request, if one is made by petitioners. If the ZBA concludes that it must again deny the application on a new or supplemental record, petitioners must commence a plenary proceeding for review, if review is sought. Imbued in the findings of the ZBA are matters of personal knowledge of the board members. Since the facts they presumably relate to are not generally known in the community, the ZBA should set forth precisely what facts were used to reach their conclusions. Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 NY2d 445, 454 (1956); cf. Matter of Von Kohorn v. Mornell, 9 NY2d 27, 34 (1961). This :.s not a situation where the Court is remanding to the ZBA for precise factual support for its findings; rather, since the matter must be returned to the ZBA for further proceedings, the admonition appears appropriate. Matter of New York City Housing Board v. Foley, 23 AD2d 84 (1st Dept 1965), aff'd, 16 NY2d 1071 (1965). Submit order on notice. 3/26/96 NYLJ 37, (col. 3) END OF DOCUMENT Copyright ® 2004 The New York Law Pub. Co. Page 6 h Up://print. west]aw.com/deli very. htm]?dent=atp&dataid=B0055800000028560003992100BB0... 4/2/04 LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and SPRIe Type: Withdrawn L Proiect Tyne: Amended Site Plans Status: Withdrawn SUM # : 1000 - 75-1-20.1 Project Name: LIPA Wind Turbine f0swey Dominion) Address: 44075 Main Road, Peconic Hamlet: Peconic Applicant Name: Long Island Power Authority Owner Name: Osorey's Dominion Vineyards, LTD Zone1: A-C Approval Date: /\J(,4�) F9-pPreovE]) End SP Date: Zone 2: 2 6 20M Records Management OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date Indicates that we have received the related Information SC Filing Date: Cand R's: Home Assoc: R and M Agreement: Zone 3: SCAN Date: xiLD \ �zJ\ \ xa31 (DEED) ,\ PROP. AREA LIGHT \ x1A5e (TYP. Of 4) \ PROP. 25' RADIUS \ WIND TURBINE \ MW'RR XOUAID \ \ PRPOSENG CWIAEWD RO E ROW5C0 \ q1 04 N J77775,537 �R E °\ N4J x9A9 41'02'7 ISN. 7T7T10.25" 6 PIAB , \ \x 1oS9 \ x2eN G \ x1e. W W \ \ \ x 1ehl \ \ \ X9.e1 \ I \ \ I LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE KEY QT_Y BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS EVERGREEN TREE($ PIAB 6 PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6-7' B+B ME EWCARN LAW DF ME SIAR T WIN RBIX PNOIBB NIY FORM FlNY NRNC ANTNNC p MEY BLANNDS MAIR NE ,oCOMANNC SPEDKATRI LINKED IT IS WO LIE MODERN IN A ROBINS RNNSSDNN OMER, NEW SIN5I &HRUENS W NNEE ME NOTESSBXN LOWER ME oRIOSAnA AIR IN'N N RIffill IIA1 HDRIDWINN T DE Uw SECTION IN xUD1 BARBED WIRE TO FACE INTERIOR GENERAL NOTES 1, THIS PLAN REFERENCES AN OVERALL SITE SKETCH AND A PARTIAL BOUNDARY k TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY: CONTROL POINT ASSOCIATES 776 MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD WAITCHUNG, NU. 07069 DATED: 02/19/04 (REV. 7) 6URWEYPREPARED WRNTHE BENEFROFATITLEREPORT 2. OWNER', OSPREY DOMINION CO. 44075 MAIN ROAD PECONIC, NY 11958 3, APPLICANT: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY/ KEYSPAN 175 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD HICIKSVILLE, NY 11801 4. ZONING DATA: ZONE: A-C AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION ZONE PROPOSED BULK REQUIREMENTS: BUSINESS "A-C" MIN. LOT AREA 80,000 SF (1.84 AC) LOT 20.1 202,011 SF (4.64 AC) LOT 20.2 2,012.377 SF (46.20 AC) TOTAL = 2, 214,385 SF 50,84 AC MIN, LOT WIDTH 175' 454.41' MIN. LOT DEPTH 250' 2,366,97' MIN. FRONT YARD 50, 179.2' (STUCCO BLDG,) MIN. SIDE YARD 20' 194.5' (METAL BLDG.) 45' (BOTH SIDES) 83.0' (STUCCO BLDG.) 200'3 (STORAGE BLDG.) MIN, REAR YARD 75' 1,980' (WIND TURBINE) MAX, BUILDING HEIGHT 35'/21h STORIES 125'• MAX. LOT COVERAGE 20% 0 65% -VARIANCE REQUIRED 5. DEED OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DATED JUNE 18, 1997 FROM OSPREY DOMINION CO. TO THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND RECORDED ON JUNE 25, 1997 IN LIBER 11837, PAGE 180, AFFECTS TAX LOT 20.2 - BLANKET - PROHIBITS OR RESTRICTS DEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. 6. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FAMILIAR WITH AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY/ALL CERTIFICATIONS, INSPECTIONS ETC REQUIRED BY ALL GOVERNING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION FOR SIGN -OFF AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUANCE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES, SCHEDULING OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND COORDINATION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES. 7 THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OR REMOVAL METHODS AND MEANS FOR ANY ACTIVITIES TOWARDS THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK DEPICTED ON THESE PLANS NOR ANY CONFLICTS OR SCOPE REVISIONS WHICH RESULT FROM SAME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE METHODS AND MEANS FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY ACTIVITIES ON SITE AND SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER OF RECORD IF A CONFLICT IS IDENTIFIED. LEGEND PROPERTY LINE %} PROPOSED AREA LIGHT -X-X- PROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCE -EE- PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE ----E-----E-- EXISTING ELECTRICAL SERVICE ITALIC TEXT DENOTES EXISTING ITEMS TO REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED A-] BARBED WIRE TO FACE INTERIOR ENLARGED SITE PLAN U A " J 1"- 3D' SECTION A -A N CORNER/GATE POST LINE -POST; w < < L3 w E 8' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL a WITH BARBED WIRE ON TOP � o � N.T.S. DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 BLOCK I LOT e RA RYIfO MR C)B9 N ANVY 9.O91RXN DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 BLOCK I LOT 19.1 DISTRICT 1000 1 SECTION 75 BLOCK I LOT 10.1 DISTRICT 1000-\ SECTION 75 BLOCK I LOT 1e I �A9el 19�l N P � , a1 { MX A6m P INUTAN NuSc P6CONIC Rs p�5 Y ITE II 58 I 9 a�J" 25 $" WfN a A ,� Ax (yyyy 6C I?2ori j Nw,9' �/7 p � fir, NayNeek 1 a i 161A - KrE ~� j � n , KEY MAP N.T.S. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD --- '- DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 75 BLOCK I LOT 20.2 ^2"-- RED I'," m NO N g i',Jy9 DISTRICT 1000 m SECTION 75 BLOCK 1 DISTRICT 1000 N�LOT 17.2 Iwel spmao S SECTION BLOCK S 2 LED INN, TO 10 F,o� LOT 2 E M,ID to �G ONW111 PDNR,NOSON 2L DISTRICT 1000 i NSC40'44"E SECTION 75 4.2312.e00(DEED) ALOG. E) BLOCK I LOT 20.1 B B Xp RRRNf RA1 BRIN nAXD GE 8m,00a S.F.SSTORAGE x/i IE141N ONP _____ LID' neI 4q SEE ENLARGED �,� \ SITE PLAN (THIS SHEET) E S3WlQ'13"E DISTRICT ION 220.00 SECTION 75 93634-I0E (DEED) BLOCK I LOT I21 EXIST. 2 STO XK MOSTEND( "PRODUCTION I BUILDING (3,! (3, AAOIt 52 LED IRA ( l` S4E•14'06"W 251.26' 544.509011 (DEED) '41 251.05' (DEED) AREA" BLOCK 2 LOT I 1pAp X p" OAX[A 528.34'22"E DISTRICT 1000 mN 9.Bm S/S2B'S6"W S46.1 POe"W 229.85' SECTION 75 Uu M.. N, IN 99.23' 354.45' S?P58'20"E (DEED) BLOCK 1 S4P06'00b (DEED) 944'SO'10'W (DEED) LOT 21 "IT NWIN OYIOI Wo OR MAIN ROAD RED R1115,SN IN (NEW PORN STATE ROUTE 25) 2 R//2 DOVERALL SITE PLANFED 2 3 2004 1 "= 300' Southold Town B®RLER ENGINEERING, IP • CIVIL k CONSULTING ENGINEERS • PROJECT MANAGERS -ENVIRONMENTAL k SITE PLANNERS • MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS GWYNEDD CORPORATE CENTER 201 NORTH SERVICE RD. 1120 WELSH ROAD, SUITE 20D SUITE 104 776 MOUNTAIN BLVD. NORT215)LES. PA 1 454 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 WATCHUNG0.6NEW 07069 ) 668JERSEY 518 872-2000 TITLE: SHEET NO C ° T.J. FILAllOLA SITE PLAN � R� PROJECT: LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY Ir �X, ION 44075 MAIN ROAD (OSPREY DONAINION VINEYARD) DISTRICT SECTION 75; BLOCK I; LOTS 20.1 B 20.2 DRAWN BY; CHECKED Br: L IN ^9 FES ' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER , TO, C, TOWN OF SOUIHOLO, SUFFOLK COUNTY �� YOR,�„CENSE]N. 0 N'&Ay�'GE NEW YgXN LICENSE N0. 59Btl STATE STATE OF NEW YORK JO/RJM MGC �(J 1,1jbICENiEyp. Fp 07� NEW JERSEY LICENSE N0, 3BOD5 PROJECT NO. DATE: REVISION NO 4 AROIBE55EmN� CONNECTICUT LICENSE No. INO42 CAD D. $GALE; FLORIDA LICENSE No, 5n14 N02482 N2482S52 AS SHOWN 10 10 / / 03 MASSACHUSETTS LICENSE N0. ]ee9