HomeMy WebLinkAboutCliffside at Southold 1989 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CLIFFSIDEa -
AT SOUTHOLD FEB _g1 ',
ggq
LEAD AGENCY: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 1989
SAI
SZEPAATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
S41■'
1
1
1
' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' FOR
' CLIFFSIDE SITE PLAN
' SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
1
S41 -
1
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONMENTM ENGINEERS&LAND[ SF PLANNERS
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
for
Cliffside
Town of Southold, New York
PROJECT: Site Plan for a 74-unit motel development
' LOCATION: North Side of North Road, County Route 48,
also known as Middle Road
approximately 500 ' east of Chapel Lane
LEAD AGENCY: Planning Board
Town of Southold
' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Bennett Orlowski , Jr. , Chairman
' CONTACT PERSON: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
PREPARED BY: Szepatowski Associates, Inc.
23 Narragansett Avenue
Jamestown, Rhode Island 02835
' DEIS and ADDENDUM TO DEIS PREPARED BY:
Steven Samet, P. E.
Henderson and Bodwell
' 120 Express Street
Plainview, NY 11803
ON BEHALF OF: Kenneth J. Tedaldi
Jessup Avenue
Quogue,, NNYpn11959
' DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: FEB 2 ` 1989 989
LAST DATE FOR COMMENTS:
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41ENbIRONMENTAL FNGINEERS&LANDL SE PLANNERS
' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I : PROJECT DOCUMENTS
A. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
' B. Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated
June 1988
C. Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated
' September 1988
' SECTION II : PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Minutes from November 14, 1988 Public Hearing
' B. Written Comments Received on DEIS and Addenda
' SECTION III : LEAD AGENCY' S RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
A. Response to Public Hearing Comments
' B. Response to Written Comments
1
--- ------------ ---
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
ENV ROhMENTAL ENGINEERS& LANDOSE PLANNERS
' SCOPE:
Pursuant to the Positive Declaration dated June 15, 1987, it was
' determined that an environmental impact statement should be
' prepared to assess the impacts associated with proposed site
plan entitled "Cliffside".
A Draft EIS was prepared and together with two Addenda was
' accepted by the Planning Board on October 18 , 1988. It may be
' found at the Planning Board offices at the Southold Town Hall ,
Southold, NY.
The full text of the EIS and Addenda is adopted as a part of
this FEIS.
The Draft EIS was the subject of a public hearing on November
' 14 , 1988.
PURPOSE:
This, the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) , is
composed of the Draft EIS (by reference) , copies of written
' comments and the lead agency' s responses to the substantive
comments, grouped by issue with the commentator acknowledged.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LAND INC.
c n' SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATESSE PLnNNERs
1
' Section I A
' Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
' Incorporated by Reference
' Original on File in Planning Board Office
1
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
IFNVIRONMENT Af FNGIAEERS&LANDESE RANNFRS
1
1
Section I B
Addendum to DEIS Dated June 1988
' Incorporated by Reference
' Original on File in Planning Board Office
1
1 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
1 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSF PLANNERS
i
Section I C
' Addendum to DEIS dated September 1988
' Incorporated by Reference
' Original on File in Planning Board Office
1
1 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDLSE PLANNER5
1
1
Section II A
Planning Board Minutes
' From Public Hearing of November 14, 1988
S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS& I ANW,SE PLANNERS
' Planning Board Minutes - November 14 , 1988
' Mr . Orlowski : O.K. Next order of business is a public hearing on
the Cliffside/Tidemark. This is a public hearing on the
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
SCTM #1000-45-1-1 . We have proof of publication in the Suffolk
Times and also in the Long Island Travler/Watchman. Everything
is in order for this public hearing. I will ask if there are any
comments to this Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement? Again, I will start from my left.
Mrs . Wacker: I am representing, once again, North Fork
' Environmental Council. We feel that the traffic study, as given
by the applicant, is not quite accurate. When we were talking
with the Department of Transportation they had different figures
for that area. It was just about fifty percent higher. I think
' that the problem of traffic at that site, right across from the
San Simeon Nursing Home, is something to be concerned about.
' Mr. Orlowski : O.K. Anyone else on my left? Moving to the center .
Any comments from anyone in the center? Any comments from anyone
on my right?
' Mr .Gressac : Hello, my name is Steven Gressac . I reside at 309
North Road. Just a couple of hundred yards east of the proposed
project . Whether the Car population going through there is
' accurate or not according to the study, I am not really sure.
Living there and driving past it everyday of my life now, I have
seen accidents . There has been some serious accidents on the
corner of Chapel Lane and North Road. There has been many, many
deer accidents there from the deer population going through the
natural ravine that goes through the proposed project. I
' personally think it is an extremely dangerous intersection
there . And to have a fifty car parking lot with the proposed
cars that are going through there and coming out of that
intersection there would be extremely dangerous to anybody
' traveling in the area. For instance, the San Simeon project or
the Nursing Home right across the street finally put in some "no
parking" signs on both sides of the street . To facilitate some
' kind of order with parking area . What is to prevent people from
the hotel having the same type of problem there . Some people
have been seriously hurt there and I don' t think it should be
' done again that way. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski : O.K. Any other comments from the right? Hearing
none are there any other comments? Mr . Emilita to have any
' comments?
Mr . Emilita : No comments .
Mr . Orlowski : Any questions from the Board? Mr . Mullen? Mr.
Latham? Mr . Ward? Mr . Edwards .
' Board members : No comments .
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
/�� ENVIRONMENTAL FNGINFFRS&I ANDLSE PLANNERS
1
Mr. Orlowski: No further comments I will declare this hearing
' closed. Thank you for coming.
1
1
' SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
SAIENVIRONNIENIALEN(INEERS&1 ANDLSE PLANNERS
1
1
1
' Section II B
' Written Comments Received
' on the DEIS and Addenda
1
1
1
' S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
41-
ENV IRON MENTAL
1ENVIRONMENTAL ENCINEERS&LAN DLSE PLANNERS
N Fe N NORTH FORK
31ENVIIRONd M1, Souf ho , JENTY k COUNCIL, INC.
Box_ 11971
C -lain goad, idattituck, New York 11952
1 Debruary 11, 1988
1
1 Bennett Urlowski and members
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
1 Gentlemen:
1 This is to question a notably bad feature of the proposed
TidewaterjCliffside .Motel development on County Road 48 near
Chapel Lane.
1 The environmental impact statement submitted for this project
estimated a 4iL Vearly increase in the number of cars from 1981
through 1985, when the statement was drawn up. Their basis
1 was a 1981 study made near there by the Suffolk County Dept.
of Public Works, which included the last 114onday and Tuesday
of August that year.
1 Yet an updated study by the SCDPd made on corresponding days
in 1985 -- Monday and Tuesday at the end of August -- at a site
only 2 miles west on the same road shows a cumulative increase
1 of 51,, -- more than twice what the developers estimate.
Copies of the SCDPd`s two studies are attached, with comparable
1 hours of traffic bearing a light pencil checkmark. The attached
yellow worksheet gives our actual arithmetic, and the attached
yellow graph shows how these figures would project into the
present. Instead of some 5000.. cars a day traversing Rt 48,
1 by 1990 a projected 7750 would be using it.
You nust be aware that the proposed motel site is on or near
1 one of the worst curves on the North Fork, that San Simeon Nursing Home
is directly across the road, and that the Sunset Aotel is t
the Past and Chapel lane to the south. The line of sight is
1 iimited for at least a dangerous quarter-mile stretch in that
spot, and the increase in traffic that would be created by this
motel development is going to be a hazard we believe you should
consider very carefully before approving their plan.
1 SincrrelyL2'10cre'7
1 Viriinia
director
1 for Ronnie Wacker, ^y
president _.. .... . ._ ..,
nk
'7
PHOTOCOPY IMZG SL F �ORI IN Li I I
! j 1 i t ! I
I 1 !
i I
rrvk,
i t ' i i I ' i �6t.a�..t �1/O �r•�fr'('L°t'If i
YV ft
i
It*
if
i r I I i I .,,✓ � � j
,
•
, I
� I i
i I ,
,
I !
,
,
e . tlrt�
l9f�l 19fy2 1*R3 IOF'.t 1(j '•
i I
i 4 rf
r xN
$ r.
y 1 p "��•a W ( ¢
:` ' .l 'e• a /•li.. X{ `!+ffie } i �"iP '#t LS f•�ylf � tl y `13�G�"!t
p t a
t ,�yu. f�1e 'tf�� . -�•tyy`�ey��; r _'!e�l� t � .♦ � � .�l�Ft ff 4 .....4 y��`c� �3
� ��. Sys'.
lit
_ _ y
A.
1'4w !v,fie- t V
y�lp��-•,,w �'a
_ ' - - . _.._-�- u� ..ice 4'- •.�t - - --i-.....---•'-` _,_::_:
>w
s
' P
x
14
117
Al
C An
>'F:: j `•`�. -.n a + :''t .,x
Job No .
Counter Nn .
Town
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT Hamlet
' Location : on C R 49 ;Ll
/ 000 ft. N W of AL SEA,sc,;v GA
Controlling traffic : N S W bound
' Set by Time 2 t I f Day
Removed by P5/.)5_6z- Time _/2 ' SS Day y -4 - 9 /
Day Mon . TuEs . Wed . Thur. Fri . Sat . Sun . A
' — Total W
Date 2 ' I Z 3 DT
12-1 / g 17 7S -9
' 1 -2 48 12---
2-3 Z ' 5 19 Z 7 7
' 3-4 41 4 6 3 / 7 4
4-5 /O, 6 6 7 Z3 7
5-6 S 17- / 5
6- 7 3 O 73 6-5-
7-8
S7-3 /43 /3 174 2-/ 3
3-9 /SS. l & /S3 / 78 A"!
9-10 _ / 39 /64 1 / 91
' 10-11 /Sz 96 88 2- 14
11 -12 / 9 Z- 22-3 7- z47 l
P . M.
12-1 7, 14 Z/4 l 2rl
F
ZOQ ZZ6 2- 3 Z53 2z3 Z (c >t i`iJ ZI7
?i � � / B7 / 9Z 7-44 24 z 33 Z4 / 7- 8� _
5-6 zoo• 2.c4f- Z / 2-4 � = /
6-7 / 3 � / 90
?-3 / 07 / 3J / 37 / 76
3-9 7 S 90 2- 7
' 9-10 57 S 3 9 9 / 00 g/
10-11 6 0 112-
11 -12
211 -12 49 43
Total S 27(a7 309 324310 -1/ 7 / (
of total
' cay as g. r factor AADT
' r } CK
1
Job No .
' Counter No . 3,c
Town -�
TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT Hamlet -
Location : on GR 48 LL?aIL !q "I's -7r�
' / Ooo ft . N (�ES W of
Controlling traffic : N E S bound
' Set by PS/,S-6L Time z; o Q D,ay g -
Removed by Time iz . so Day 9 - 4 dl
Day Mon . Tues . !Jed. Thur . Fri . Sat . Sun . F Date Total
3 / Z 3
' A . G
12- 1 _ ✓ 2-4 zz / 6
1 -2
2-3 Ste✓ / O 5 /
' 3-4 2- 4 Z / z 3
4-5
5-6 2-.3 -, Z / 2-
' 6- 7 62- $3
7-8 -52 /s4 1 .34 / Z8
8-9 / 43 / BO / SO /5S
9-1 0
S9-10 /46s lSo .7� � 14 <�
/ 6Z 163 / 9S '7 / gv
�t1 -12 73 / 7 �3 /
94
P . M .
12- 1 / 88 / 73
1 -2 ZZ- 6 o(o ZO8 .= - 14
2-3 Zzs 7Z 99 2- 28 1
3-4 _2- 76- 2- 33 ZS 2-7O ?s9
4-5 ZSZ. Z z / Z1�3 2- 6/ 2.14
_5-61 2 Z - 3 3 zzl — — °Gi 240
6-7 1 33 Lo l 70 13S 1 �, l40
-s ! / Z 3a / ZS S 3 / ?
8-9 / 0 z 700 loo q11 :1
t 9--10 _fie -77 4 _ 7z „ C', -7. 7' -
10- 11 57 S3 60 G3_ ? � A 58
11 - 12 33 55- 4o Sl / -7
Tu' a1 / 507 17 If ZBSB 2-E? l7
of total
Tay avg . f actor AAPT
SJFFOLH CCON7Y DEPT L,- 0VB_IC WORKS SITE NO. : 48 .,: FILE: 249-09
1 HOUR. 2 CHPNNEL VEHICLE COUNT CRL9 PON YDH'!6S q4. EL
CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 WEEK OF MuNDFY P-8-S' 26. 1395
----------------------------
'
rSJR MONDAY 26 T7ESDAY 27 WEDNESDAY 28 THURSDAY 29 FRIDAY 23 BATCRDgY 24 N-qY 25 W q V RAr,E
B
' EB INS E W E N E W E W E W E w W g P
W3
--- --
12PM 19 19 20-' 12 + + r a a a 63 64 C,9 c, 20 !6 j`
1 11 8 6, 6 t r t a + + _:
— -� 47 ? 7
2 6 15 10% 5 + f s a f a E8 16 13 34 8 10
3 8 3 6 6 + t IF + + + 15 1'13 15 7 5
4 6 14 4 7 a + f + a + 13 13 14 ;7 5 11
5 46 45 32. 33 a + + f a + 52 25 16 73 39
6 104 111 113 98 + f t + f + 127 54 E6 34 I('3 Ili
7 249 224 295 223' + t a + t f 201 !E4 37 7) '172
224
8 261 248 294 228- + + + + + + 209 153 !°7 !!! 279 243
9 271 296 257, 235 + r t + + a 389 259 159 195 2^_4 ES!
10 283 310 a t t + + + + + 4E6 259 rill 264 203 310
11 308 348 + f a r + a + f 433 3!0 218 354 3-8
120M 302 265 f a a r + x 411 26S 52'0 3'_6 c 7 37, 397 276
' 1 317 300 a a f a r a 369 329 452 3_.5 ->7 4 S a;3
2 319 319 + a a + a " 5
a
37_ 3.3 424 3E! "E! 375 346 336
3 3'130 320- + a f a + a 398 3'0 354 4^_@ 219 379 344 %5
4 317 378 - a a + a s + 463 403 324 389 2;5 332 331
' S 20' 329- + a a + + f 389 330 324 379 ! 3 353 355 33n
6 2,10. 203 t t + + s a 235 260 245 334 1 5275 2E3 245
7 159- 189- a t + f a a 231 204 229 258 !.6 236 ___ 197
8 112• 153- + t + f + a 3,16 161 1?I 246 !c2 !31 2'N 157
9 94 127- + + + + x f 247 175 140 152 73 166 150
10 11 64 + + + t a + 1?! 139 15; IE3 E4 _= 13! 102
LI 47 47- t t + + + a 155 72 93 133
c! !
_ n! c„
____ _ ---------------- -----_--------_ --------_------------------
757AL5-A
-L
________4(5__0 4203_________1037______863_________—______ ___________________
0 0 0 0 3917 3162 c_547 4_,;i4 "997 4'c.4 463' 4423 -e-
,-I 4 ,
e-,14„ ; , 77 -
COQ?INFO TG"A_S
12
1 !9 12
2 21 15 + s . 44 19
3 !1 12 a a r _.
4 :1
c6 !6
' 5 3! E5 a a f o7 72
6 2!5 2:1 + a f 181 c.,_p
7 073 1318 a a --- IZ7
8 S113 532 a a a 4g4 c.5 ccs
' 9 ', 7 492
10 5.3 a a a : 7s4 e7o 5;3,
11 6'.6 a r a r 8n3 6!6
' 12 5S7 r + r E97 93? E48 6=3
1 517 a a f 638 837 633 E,a
2 639 ■ a + 725 7?5 EES 6c°
3 E20 + a t 718 755 `37 c.;a
4 635 . a + 866 - 709 7E7 721
5 549 + a f 719 742
6 433 + r f 575 579
7 348 s + + 435 437 --
a chs + r a 467 427
2f3 t + + 422 tit _ 3fE
a�
19 125 a a s 330 3:4 L`3 233
it 94 f a f 227 2-6
---
TOTALS 3433 1300 0 0 6339 1 055 1 7591 a25;
v' LL
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I„ N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (576) 765-1809
1 APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
1 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS1 yyu" IV JOSEPH H. SAWICKI ,.,
,,
J
FEBT0 : Southold Town Planning Board 1 0r1l -
1 FROM : Board of Appeals
1 DATE : February 11 , 1988
SUBJECT : Cliffside Associates/Tidemark Project
1 Location : N/s C . R . 48 , Greenport
CTM #1000-45-01 - 1 & 2 ( now 2 . 1 )
1 Based upon a review of the DEIS submitted to our office
January 12 , 1988 , as a coordinating agency , please let
1 this letter confirm our position as briefly discussed
at the SEQRA hearing on January 25 , 1988 .
1 It is our position that the data supplied has not been fully
satisfied , particularly with reference to the "sight distance "
and "traffic hazards " in the area of the proposed egress and
egress .
' A study is necessary to determine the magnitude of the impact
of this restricted sight distance , which can be a contributory
factor in traffic accidents over the years along this highway
area . The egress and egress proposed at this sight is
"commercial , " that being defined as any driveway other than
1 those serving one or two family residential dwellings .
Factors must be considered which include the type of vehicles ,
approaching speeds , reaction time , intersectional geometry ,
pavement condition , approach control , sighting distance that
1 is clear of obstructions for space-time-velocity of approaching
vehicles .
1 Following the SEQRA he-arin•g , our office was informed that the
applicant would consider an alternative restricting any and all
left-hand exiting at the premises from the westerly egress ,
restricting entrances onto the site at the east end , etc .
1
1
{
' Page 2
February 11 , 1988
Re : Cliffside Associates
' SEQRA Review
' The overall purpose of the SEQRA review is not only for environ-
mental studies but is also for traffic studies , and of course
before it is finalized .
Enclosed are five photographs taken February 7 , 1988 by a
professional photographer which shows the distance and need
' for an appropriate entrance/exit plan .
' BY TRE SOUTHQLD,,,:�OWN B.OIARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P . GOEHRINGER , CHAIRMAN
lk
1
1
1
1
..r
Lan
uz
y( L
�Ok
Y .l
1 '
_ � its 1 J" ;y . �ll jl 1 1• �.. �r; .• 'V; t k - I� Yf
� -•v F��+r I ti�i'..{t F a F:.' � � F; �''t� ��; .,f.�s.�_y`•...,' ,_.
S�l• ' � ' H. Y< ��Z +t + bre
.aryx'P�"+u�r
_ : •�..�~.�: �rrl�G �°`w�''�'i�'y�r�"y"ir r.M��� `rt'�ii^t`sy."`�.»R�'F e� .��z' �'m�a
' _ „� Y .� ° , •.�,"'Y�l:f3 1 } I. ^y rryl� M'� 'r'.t'�t_�l„•Wp r�';r� '\'-� '` �`^�r I
�` � 4.%r •r �..4' �/Y'� �.� � ray 'r-.V,a IY,- ♦ r��rPwS�3
t F
/ 1
,
L
1?.M,!'bYt .u,^`�' �"ii°=.wM�.•«• a sw•o v��� ... g �<f '' �,,. '
.. rt
r ( u•: ..
5[ Y41, >` 1
c
a f
. M,.T{c1 r i^f�^'Ae' . h' r a� a*Ml t! 't `�'�Via; +w'• •` 1.., ' ^'�. � � r� ,1
� ',,W-
IN
, ', J yh
�.xGlGrf '. _. .'. "/� �f r d .:r 4 ^f'�"Ay.J�[ t•.wlX'roy,,.. ';�� J:
.2_. L � '. . Y F•^ � f[ -J �`".(�• � 1 �.�(a� '. 1..'v? Y,yi / 1 , -5.� "?'�Y
.mow�{*?e`h.'n a v - � r`*`��„� ,~ _ � t � ;{cpy�+�lY^,•�r�"rfy r � �!`,: Al
ley' '�t�'
Jipu V'�f y n "�� _ f� s.M�~14• �A-�~ �}y,Vt y�[ l.V '^fit k L �' ,��
�: � t"�,r'�'7f� �_ta"�,t✓�ritf< .J.N+� T'1S'r G - .•' �, r �� ✓ ..>r ty _. ' ''r4r ` . t .a'
1[�iYl ✓ '��' � v �[x�r. _ `���r.;�• rr [ .v n .r ,., 1 � � ar. �'�[
{ i
r -
\. i
O -
Y
c'� h...• a r � a
My
yy�dFP3yltyfr
ILI
moi' • �, y.r �r �. r F .. .. i - .
' •• .icy �A.4r �R}r �F� o-;� ✓yv+N�r., Y e � 1 `t`- '�`-'
} 4"
� � c
pIA SNI
TOS; -'s ULCOL D
u�
' S Ya Y
' Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Southold Town Planning Board
' FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
DATE: February 11, 1988
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cliffside, Southold
' The following observationSare based on a reading of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. The DEIS does not address the following
items adequately, to wit:
' 1. Traffic impact of proposed project on existing and projected volume
of traffic on County Road 48 and its intersection with Chapel Lane.
A. The traffic impact analysis should have been based on 1986 or
' 1987 field data; not 1981 field data. Traffic volume has
increased along with development in recent years, and this
increase must be noted.
' 2. The impact analysis of traffic at this site should also include
this existing pattern of traffic at this site; namely the fact that
visitors (or employees, I'm not sure which) to the nursing home
park along both sides of C.R. 48 across from the nursing home
and adjacent to the subject property.
' 3. The proposed access point should be staked in the field so that an
accurate accessment of the potential conflicts that may arise can
be made. Note should be made of the sightline or vision of the -
' road that a motorist will have at the proposed. access point and
whether this line of sight will be sufficient given the rate of
speed at which most motorists customarily pass this site.
' 4. The speed at which traffic customarily moves on CR 48 is not mentioned
in the draft. The curve in the CR near subject site is a locally
known accident area. Clearly, there should be some discussion of
' the current accident rate and of ways to mitigate or prevent it
from increasing after this .project. is constructed.
1
C
' DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLIFFSIDE, SOUTHOLD
PAGE 2
t5. The visual impact of this project on the surrounding neighborhood and
on the view from the water was not addressed in the DEIS. The proposed
' first floor elevation of the two-story building unit closest to CR 48
is 58.5 feet above sea level. The elevation of C.R. 48 is about 51.4
feet at the proposed point of entry; a 7 foot difference. However,
neither the site plan nor the impact statement shows the changing
' elevation of the middle of C.R. 48 along the road frontage of the site.
Therefore it is not possible to judge the visual impact.
' Cross profiles showing the elevation of C.R. 48 relative to the existing
and proposed elevation of the site should have been submitted with the
DEIS. A cross profile showing the relationship of this project to the
bluffs and the neighboring development should also be prepared,
particularly since two of the units are only 20' from the property line.
6. The density of this proposal is predicated upon the obtaining of public
t water and the obtaining of access to sewage treatment from the Greenport
Village Utility Company. The Village has had a moratorium oma--sewer
hookups; and does not appear to have the capability of extending public
' water at this time. The capability of the Greenport Utility System
to handle this project within the near future should be addressed by
the applicant. Perhaps one of the alternative plans should address
the possibility of not being able to obtain either water or sewage or
both.
7. The statement made in the ",'Mitigating Measures" section on page 4-4
that "Since the existing vegetation will be preserved around the perimeter
of the site, much of the dust generated during construction will be
contained within the site's boundaries." is contradicted by the grading
plan. This plan shows extensive regrading of the site up to the easterly
and westerly property lines.
' In summary, the proposal would result in a very intense use of 'a site
that is bordered by fairly intense multiple residence type uses to the east
(Sunset Motel) , south (San Simeon Nursing Home) , and/ultimately� to the
' west (Pebble Beach Complex and Soundview Motel and Restaurant) . Two
issues stand out; the capability of the Greenport Utility Company to handle
the projected density and the feasibility of handling the. traffic.
' With regard to the first issue; the fact that other projects which have '
already received Planning Board approvals have been put on hold indefinitely
due to the inability of the Utility Company to adequately service them
' with either water or sewage or both should not be ignored by either the
applicant or the Planning Board.
1
1 C �
1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLIFFSIDE, SOUTHOLD
1 PAGE 3
The second issue needs to be examined in more detail than the data in
1 the DEIS permits. The realignment of C.R. 48 may have to be considered;
or perhaps the installation of traffic signals will be -acessary. Turning
lanes as part of a partial road widening may need to be considered also.
1 However, there is insufficient data in the DEIS with which to answer these
questions. The final EIS should rectify this omission.
1
1 V. Scopaz
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEC 09 '9E 12:20 TOHtN OF Spi_ITHQLE, F'.2
tO T T
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. 1179
1971 �
Southold, Newew Yorkk1 1 1971
TELEPHONE
(516)'165.19 38
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
' December 8, 1988
David Emilita
SAI
' Jamestown, Rhode Island 02835
RE: Cliffside/Tidemark
Water and Sewer Contracts
' SCTM# 1000-45-1-1
Dear Dave,
Enclosed please find confirmation from H. B. Sherman that
water and sewer contracts between. the Village of Greenport and
' Tidemark are valid and in effect.
tVery truly yours,
BENNETT ORLOWSKI , QTR.
' CHLiRDLkN
1
1
DEC Era '88 is U TC-1d!I OF SOUTHOLD P.o,3
' Oj1Ce1S UTILITY OFFICE TEL,
MAYOR 1��LCl9e O/ �r (s 16)477.1748
eenport
GEORGE W.HUEBARD mC.ero..r.. 1.11 POWER PLANT TEL.
new ,nee e.e.wn.. •.a.�. 4.6 (i 1 Ol 0.77.0172
TRUSTEES at.i.ee n.e•.cion snot. e.nu.� �.w r.. x., n..
STEPHEN L CLARKE
JEANNE M.COOPER
DAVID S.CORW'IN
GAIL F.HORTON
% N_O
SUPT.OF UTILITIES I
lAME61.MONSELL 111' ^^
I�
336 THIRD STREET ' L J _C ` -7 'C^f
P.O.BOX AH L�
GREEN FORT,SUFFOLK COUNTY yLO-Y,-IhI1.J".: j
NEW YORK 11944 fl;'.r710"tc
December 5, 1988
' Mr. Bennett CrlowSki , Jr.
Sou-nold Town Planring Board
Southold Toe;n Hall
' Me'_n Road
Southold, N- Y. 1197i
Ke: Cliff de/'Tidemark
Water & Sewer Contracts
SCTV -1000-45-1-1
' Dear Mi. Orlcvsk: ;
This l;�l '. : CC'lilrlr C11aL 4'o_ci 5_lve C r�_ dLS L'CT Ce'i
the v 'Icige of Creenperi and T;de:n; rk are valid and ; n Effecr.
if I can be of further 8ss; s1 nce, p'ea.;e ;.ontact me.
vJir`
-
rt. 3T" ,icr:l;I�r
NR<, incl
jJ r.
+1 iaC- Tr.:StaES
�tlllt.y l,pmrGl Lte2
100 Years of Communiry Service
1
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Town of Southold Planning Board
1 FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc.
RE: Cliffside/Tidemark DEIS
1 DATE: November 14, 1988
The following are our substantive comments with regard to the
1 above mentioned DEIS:
Page 2. 23 The Orient Point/New London Ferry provides year round
1 service, not just summer months, has this fact
changed traffic counts.
Page 3. 3 Bow will erosion be controlled during earth moving,
1 an erosion control plan should be presented, for
example: how will the fence be maintained.
1 Page 3. 8 Site runoff is proposed to be recharged into leaching
basins and transferred directly to the groundwater,
however, site runoff will include oil , grease, etc.
1 which is not wanted in the groundwater.
Panes 5. 1-
5_4 An alternative to be considered should be single
1 family house lots.
Addendum Traffic reports indicate a large deer population. in
1 the area, this was not addressed at all in the
do .went.
1 Paae la The Fire Department should review the project for a
determination of ample pressure for fire fighting
purposes.
1
P---E-- l6 ii CO:IticLcus , vec:cCoed b:',ffer-chG:i1d be pro'cidcd by
the zuw.1ect i;roYe.ty, nor tr;e ce t property. Tie
ae'Ze!0P!- cAt :. £ ,'.' "in_ on aajec :eri` property t0
1 prcviae screenin by existing vegetation. All of the
'decetation wirhi' tl:e 100 ' buffer should remail:
ur.tcuche,6 in o der tc proviae a corridor for
Pane 2.6 Tnt walkway st.ould be constructed out of wood rather
than concrete which will not be environmentally
1 soured. This will also be more aesthetically pleasing
and will not cause further erosion by construction.
1 CU'V�L.LIANTS d PL4NNFF:S
Page 16 The setback from the edge of the bluff should be 100 '
trather than 75.
Page 18 The silt fence proposed should be installed Prior to
' removal of topsoil.
Page 20 The entire site (7 acres) should be considered as the
' water shed, not only 4. 65 acres.
1
1
1
E
' I t Ltd.
ENORUNNIENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
' sI r
' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794
(516) 751_7900
E:7i7ommissioner g
' March 11, 1988
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. , P.O. Box 1179
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Attn: Valerie Scopaz for Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
' Re: DEIS for Cliffside Associates
a/k/a Tide Mark
' Dear Ms. Scopaz :
The Department offers the following comments on the above referenced project:
Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection - The project as proposed lies beyond
DEC jurisdiction with respect to Tidal Wetlands Act. Any work on or
seaward of the bluff edge (such as stairs down to the beach) would
' require a permit. The 100' setback from the bluff edge is what we
would have recommended to ensure it and the beach below remain un-
disturbed. Also, to that end, any areas of lawn or other plantings
' should be limited to not closer than 20' to the edge and pitched so
that runoff is directed away from the bluff.
Water Supplv Unit - Comments are extensive and so a copy is enclosed.
Fish & Wildlife - As of this date no comments have been received from
this unit so I shall assume they have none.
' I hope these comments will be of use to your agencv in its decision making
process. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
' Very truly yours,
o-r '-4 6, ?/Q,Ce- /W.i 74��.�
Joseph B. Hall
rw Environmental Analyst
e
' nclos
enclosure
cc: JBH (SEOR File)
C. T. Hamilton
' Robert Wither
F. Panek
t
To: Jae. No.Q.Q
1 Rtm
' c: l BYVUn�ti GO 0 ti l CLLI=1�i L 3 y �n,J{L t rC �7 Ytf e lJ
-7, X988
Ala"-
ura
2 V J 2vrn^w0 .2 �d \l <tM➢ wC XQ uQ �+uC!
k;� J1llPx Wzm at gyp L�.e C'&t.GzLA.
I'I
4 W : par
2-13 Qsc�.L� z-l[o
' �mea,� 2-13 �o .ocYa�.1 $a �1�5 c�afia { a� "googaQQaxd �a��l .� f,¢�
ack,L .Tvt cam. Q Vew y ' �
uA�e�npaa" AL qttw4urge TI.Q �O Et5 Baca m 2 e
.fid At6Lr ' �v�L nn� .iJwvea�ice�o�io� Ung e Cai(a U C�(�
CF+' AIM .tri Zt�vt of
tz 160 B{ "" U -DILL
' w ta -Z,d ,k3 U➢(Y i 'g�, �.
y, , IPA C w"ASA(_ /�, - e-C-R- -11J u J -Q b�'.,yM �
CA 's a' aM 80 Gs o
ti°9 c. - e dete a a za a 0(-Tn. ,-8
ca.n^ r,-o=t Z-e d _
'
C . V3-3
&rc�.o�.,,c9 c�. � ,c.ulYvvwtati
e j a -,�z vac )az a +� ImLr daj2,Vm.e� ,
lwe�, d Q r,& cuae t�,uga�zm�� w,�u „te� e-uc w
�auv eae z ' x rmz a Pte ifzeQ . A6-jnm r eau �n
C2�2c.ltd a .z
-otic p S.
T-�- Els wed fYAa.� tai A ur tea. L t Q t� ILe-
cc c2:� dwu•.c� 1�a
vLt �2 F 6rivry D uGLZSI
' 5 *xr� 1.�1 ouna��-n a ere 3-i d
' TJ e�i Si QeCa �n .Z9 e QaaC w � � Is to in
o
L� AM am aAza w&Q.,4 �Cneaaa ,Lc of 2
QA e a �1 u�t�e136 m rAz e{�t w enrc� �u ,� eu�2 t
CJLM
r- c/w
� tea,•r.Q,�� .�e�rv�eu>2��noSulc��e -�u��"�ci.a�uCYc�c.�"�
wcc 4� d�Pducf " - 6 Y-0714 d i U-)
A AZC,a-F h .
e�n.GQ.i.�ai$�ne rM.G.eJ�z �. �$,,� Aze�i.un Q,.z r�s't t,•aQ_,�:c�.
G1p.le 3'Z 1n n n
+ 1/.1L .5�+-4,C'�LLyV�.61a4�a cl.o M4 -�+umG� Xl t
` n -�L, -- nnn nnn nnn /_ten �/ tE
(,,( 1, �wq V� �C..�A.L. M�Q�A��I{.YghC����
^AM ll4 VYJ/ �`^^-ok^"iL`-1
� W„ � rm ca-n�a�Z M of d� 2 aDu JZ2A rie 2u _Le
i-
' � e
_ �1'� , l�ElS CAnQ Md�ku GQxf o cxt , hw d3 e ZYrzv
AA (YIzt �vQ. l�vu� �� �c,vx�.d.Eta ..ILiR 1,wt,wLen,,neLr,� ,
1Al-3 c /
T CJ'n=lvt-uC.L�GvI COQxa �-d� _P�tc�.t.V n cc-rj�.1,& rr?� ' .R�d .t'+ cam.'.✓ J..L(..�i�.7`
Stb [bo t{ e ,yy� aMa4 nc aaa e
J. S, + y,1i� tiYr.z /�Aa�`twca t TA
o-A JO's ` n�a a,� cf u4 a ¢, rnna ry ,-��
wo� .�,,Q.ct,c.�,c, �n.6, ae u,T-OG
c�z� nt.q.van.2 a i WTOZ. Si m
c3m1b�unYa ° o cye m ar Z e civ" cm,c:t�� e L"e �ffe rY�
car��:dlz.�a�.ana.
CC -7p; . S c �z
1
1
1
1
' Section III A
' Lead Agency' s Response to
Public Hearing Comments
S41 -S-Z—EPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
Q /tf� ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDI;SE PLANNERS
' TRAFFIC
Ronnie Wacker :
' The DEIS and Addenda address the issue of traffic. In the most
recent addendum from September, 1988, the preparer references
' the most current traffic count information available from the
Traffic Division of the Suffolk County Department of Public
' Works. This count was taken in August 1985 and updates the
previous reference made in the DEIS.
' Steven Gressac:
The DEIS and Addenda prepared discuss the high occurrence of
' traffic accidents in the area. The September 1988 Addendum
includes Town police accident reports, which make it evident
that the area is an existing hazard.
t
S41 -
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. - -
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEFR5&LANDLSE PLANNERS
1
1
1
Section III B
' Lead Agency' s Responses
' To Written Comments
' SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
Q /�� ENVIRONMFNTAL ENGINEERS&I.ANDUSE PLANNERS
' TRAFFIC:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
' and Town Planner :
' The Addendum to the DEIS notes a revision in the layout of the
' egress to prohibit left-hand turns onto County Route 48. The
entrance to the site would be restricted to the easterly
' driveway into the site. While this would help to mitigate the
' traffic hazard created by limited site distance, a reduction in
the number and in the size of the units would be an even greater
' mitigation factor.
There is a concern with regard to past accidents which have
occurred in the area. Unless the Chapel Lane/CR 48 intersection
is improved, all reasonable measures to minimize traffic impacts
' at that intersection must be taken. Again, reduction in number
and size of units would reduce the project ' s impact.
' VISUAL IMPACT:
tIn response to the Town Planner ' s memorandum, the visual impact
of the project was addressed in the September 1988 Addendum to
' the Draft. Plans were included which indicated the cross
' sections of the buildings in relation to the bluffs and Middle
Road. On the Middle Road elevation, deciduous trees are
' UEPATOMKI ASSOCIATES INC. -
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS B LANDS SE PL ANNERS
indicated along the road. while these trees are adequate street
' trees, and may provide for some screening during the growing
season, they do not provide screening for the motel proposal
' year-round. It is also apparent that the rendering depicts
' tall , mature trees which will have be added to the existing
natural vegetation, and which will require substantial
' irrigation (from a stressed municipal water supply system) to
sustain them in their early years of establishment. However,
' according to the landscaping plan, the trees planted will be 3-3
' 1/2 caliper which would not provide the screening needed.
' The Lead Agency finds that a 30 foot wide buffer of existing
natural vegetation on the east and west property lines and a
further setback for buildings E and F and landscaping with
' coniferous trees (other than black pines) and berms will be
necessary for screening. The re-landscaped areas must use
' drought resistant trees, shrubs, and grasses to limit irrigation
requirements to reduce water demand during the summer.
The Lead Agency finds that a reduction in the number and size of
the motel units and scaling down the height of the buildings
' with one-story buildings along the Middle Road and two-story
units along the Sound would minimize visual impacts. This would
' also provide more conformance with the surrounding land uses.
— — -
-- -
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. -
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LAND[SE PLANNERS
' In response to the Town Planner ' s memorandum and comments from
' SAI with regard to a vegetative buffer, the applicant discusses
this in the addendum. However, the Lead Agency finds that a
contiguous, vegetated buffer must be provided on the subject
' property, not the adjacent properties. The development proposal
is relying on adjacent properties to provide screening from
' itself. If the adjacent property is needed for screening, then
obviously the project size needs to be reduced in order to allow
for proper screening on the site.
A minimum of thirty feet of dense, mature evergreen drought
' resistant planting, or the retention of existing growth, would
be sufficient. Also, all of the vegetation within the 100 '
' buffer along the Sound, (except where necessary for the
installation of wooden posts for a catwalk to the beach down the
face of the bluff) and along Middle Road shall remain untouched,
' except at the entrance drive to provide a visual screen and
minimize the impacts of construction.
The single family residence near the southwest corner of the
' property will be adversely affected by noise and lighting from
' the proposed pool and tennis courts and thus a thirty (30) foot
wide buffer of existing natural vegetation shall be retained
along the entire westerly boundary of the site. To protect the
----
' S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDL SE PLANNERS
1
easterly abutters from construction impacts, noise, adverse
' lighting impacts, slope erosion and visual intrusion, a natural
buffer of thirty (30) feet of existing vegetation shall be
' maintained on the easterly boundary.
1
' WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
' In response to comments from the Town Planner, there is
' documentation from the Village of Greenport which confirms that
the water and sewer contracts are still valid.
1
The Water Supply Unit of the Department of Environmental
' Conservation questions the Groundwater Hydrology, and Water
' Supply. The DEIS states "800 gallons per day per acre in an
average rainfall year, percolates through the ground and
' eventually reaches the groundwater table. " While the source is
not stated, this is too low of an estimate. According to the
' Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan of
' the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in September
1986, the average gallons per acre recharged in the County is
' found to be 1750 gal./per acre/day. Therefore, the estimates
used in the DEIS are too low for on-site recharge.
1
1
SAI SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSE PLANNERS
L
The DEC also questions the lense of fresh water stated in the
' DEIS. The preparer references the Ghyben - Herzberg
Relationship which, as per the North Fork Water Supply Plan, has
' been found to underestimate the actual depth of available fresh
' water. Without an on-site analysis of groundwater such
estimates are not sufficient for drainage purposes.
The DEC also comments on the use of potable water for other uses
' such as irrigation, pool filling and makeup. The Lead Agency
' finds that potable water supplies on the North Fork are too
valuable to be used for swimming pool filling and makeup and
non-potable sources are recommended. Other measures to limit
potable water uses to be included on the final site plan include
' drought resistant vegetation, as noted earlier, installation of
' a landscape sprinkler system which is automatically activated by
soil moisture or none at all. Thus, a separate well for
' irrigation, pool use, and air conditioning is strongly
recommended to be shown and evaluated by the Planning Board when
' it considers site plan approval.
' RECHARGE:
SAI and the DEC have noted the issue of groundwater recharge.
' The DEIS states that the site development will actually increase
' the supply of water to the groundwater regime with little
tSr4I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. --
Cd' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSE PLANNERS
substantiation. However, without knowledge of soils by actual
' on-site borings, statements about recharge cannot be verified.
It is strongly felt that existing recharge and runoff needing to
' be recharged after site development, are both too low due to
underestimations of the total area on the site needed to be
drained.
As per the DEIS, most of the site has soils with severe
' limitations due to moderately slow permeability. with the
' amount of pavement and site improvements proposed there will be
impervious surfaces over 558 of the site (landward of the
' bluff) . while leaching pools proposed may capture a two-inch
rain, because of the soil limitations, runoff water may not be
' absorbed into the ground quickly enough to prevent runoff from
' ponding and running toward the bluff. Therefore, the amount of
recharge stated may not occur in actuality due to low soil
' permeability.
' It is also noted, that a two inch rainfall in 24 hours is used
' for drainage calculations. However this is exceeded at least
annually, and is insufficient to design a drainage system on so
' sensitive a site. The Lead Agency will require a twenty-five
year storm (six inch rainfall in 24 hours) frequency to be the
' design storm. The drainage calculations must be revised for a
' six inch rainfall with an appropriate drainage plan submitted
' SAI SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. -----
S41
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSE PLANNERS
' based upon the revised calculations to capture and recharge this
' rainfall with zero net increase in runoff over existing
conditions. Also to be shown on this plan is a drywell for
swimming pool drainage and backwash.
' A reduction of impervious surfaces leaving significantly more
' natural vegetation for recharge would improve the site' s ability
to recharge all impervious surface runoff, decreasing the danger
' of bluff overflow and consequent erosion damage.
' SHORELINE AND EROSION CONTROL:
As noted by the DEC, the location of the leaching pools do not
' eliminate the threat of erosion to the bluff. These should be
relocated to a more stable area of the site. Leaching Pool No.
6 must be relocated since it is less than the lee ' setback from
' the bluff.
' The beach walkway proposed should not be constructed out of
concrete which will cause further erosion by its construction.
1 The walkway should be elevated and be constructed out of wood no
' more than four feet above existing grade, and existing
vegetation be cleared only in the area necessary for individual
Post installation.
S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. -- --
' C/ I ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSE PLANNERS
All silt fencing proposed must be installed Prior to removal of
' topsoil. Also, runoff must not be allowed to pool on the site
since this may actually increase erosion problems. Further
' drainage analysis will be necessary at the site plan review.
' Erosion control methods must include a means of recharging
accumulated runoff near Route 48 or at least in the center
' portion of the site during both construction and operating life
of the project.
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES :
The final design of the project must be reduced as follows:
1. reduce the traffic impact
2. reduce building and land coverage
' 3. reduce number and size of units (individual) .
4. require less water and thus produce smaller amounts
' of sewage.
These environmental concerns must be given equal consideration
tand balanced against economic concerns.
' An alternative discussed by the DEIS was a reduction to 58
units. No financial documentation was offered to substantiate
t
'
S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. --
C4' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS&LANDUSE PLANNERS
economic feasibility of this alternative. A reduction to 58
units is felt to be a more reasonable alternative than either 74
units or 50 units. This would provide for the reduction of
either one 16-unit building or two 8-unit buildings along with
' associated parking, impervious surfaces, traffic generation,
construction and visual impact for same. The reduction would
' preserve existing vegetation, as well as decrease other
environmental impacts such as impacts to wildlife, noise and
' danger of bluff erosion.
' As noted previously, an acceptable alternative would reduce the
' number of units to 58 and reduce the height of the buildings
nearest Middle Road. Buildings E and F would then have a first
' floor grade of 48. 5 ' rather than 58. 51and a building height of
83. 5 feet above MSL instead of 93. 5 feet above MSL.
The Lead Agency feels that reduction of individual unit size
from 911 and 1042 square feet to 450 square feet will reduce
project size by more than one half, in terms of land coverage,
' and significantly reduce water use. Four hundred and fifty
square feet of room area is a reasonable size for a motel unit.
' Any significantly larger motel room is more appropriate for a
townhouse intended for long-term residency.
t
t
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
C/�' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 8 LANDVSE PLANNERS
t
' SUMMARY
' The Lead Agency would find an alternative that, a) increases the
amount of natural buffer to a minimum of thirty feet along
Middle Road and on the east and west sides of the property; b)
' that reduces the unit count to 58 or reduces the individual unit
size to 450 square feet at a maximum of 74 units, c) reduces the
' buildings facing on Middle Road to one-story, and d)
incorporates the findings on the subjects of traffic, visual
impact, water supply and sewage disposal , recharge, and
' shoreline and erosion control , will minimize environmental
impacts to the greatest degree practicable.
1
1
1
1
tS41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONSAENTAI ENGINEERS& LANDLSE PLANNERS