HomeMy WebLinkAboutLWRP
i
~:
J
,.
,
".
'J
~
i'
J
.
,"
:1 ' i
!,j
J
:f
,
I~
.
t1'
f;t'
''If.' ; ~
"
~
.
'] f';.
.
'.Ii '61
.
"
~~
J,
i~.
1'1. '
I
,
" J
'.'
I
.'{" /,
Ii'
iF
.... .I!I
,'I' "
l!..:>.
.
-.
.I
f~
~".;" .
fIt r
,.
"
,
,
I
~,. II
~'~, ;: .:11
,-1lL-..f.f" fill
"~~~ ,..Jf
t, .'.j. ':J""''t.. . fl.'
'", ~ .~;li( . l~'
-~
./
"
'.,' "
, I. ..(
Y " ..
'l:
~,
.;;;.......
'X
"
; 'Ii
KENNETH L. E WARDS
MARTIN H. mOR
GEORGE D. SO OMON
JOSEPH L. TO NSEND
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
PLANNING BOAR MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WO DHOUSE
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
DRAFT
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Town of South old Planning Board-
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of South old Board of Trustees
Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector
From: Mark T rry, Senior Environmental Planner
L WRP Coordinator
Date: Octobe 20, 2006
Re: Propos d Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle at East Marion
SCTM 1000-38-7-7.1 Zonc: M-Il
This proposed ction requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health
center with a t tal of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory mote units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5
unit motel roo s). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along
with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,
office space, re ail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The
proposed actio also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest
seats and a cov red 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 s . ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three 3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the, 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel
in the MIl Zond located approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shi yard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM # 1000-38-7-
7.1
The action has een reviewed to Chapter 275, Waterfront Consistency Review ofthe Town of
Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy
Standards. Bas d upon the information provided on the L WRP Consistency Assessment Form
submitted to th's department as well as the records available to me, it is my determination that
the proposed adC~on supports most of the policies of the L WRP, however, the proposal is
INCONSISTENT with the below Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with
the LWRP basled upon the following:
;-
1
The L WRP identifies the former Long Island Oyster Farm site at the foot of Old Shipyard Lane as
a underutilized commercial property. It is discussed in detail in Subsections. 7 and B.
Section V Subsection 7 states "the abandoned fish processing site at the foot of the Shipyard Lane,
at Cleaves Point, has great potential to provide additional public access to the water as a Town
marina. The Heavy use of the ramp at gull Pond Inlet suggests a need for more good Boating
access between Greenport Village and Orient Harbor." In addition, the L WRP identifies the site in
section B. Summary and Conclusions: Item I. Opportunities for land use changes: as "having
potential to be developed into a multi-use facility accommodating water enhanced recreational uses
as well as the typical water dependent uses allowed under the existing zoning. This site is also a
feasible location for a Town marina. Public ownership of this site may be more compatible with
the surrounding residential neighborhood than commercial operation. It would also provide access
within this reach"
Policy 4. Minimize loss of human life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and
erosion.
Policy Standards
4,1 Minimize losses of human life aud structures from flooding and erosion hazards.
The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and
structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested:
A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures
away from flooding and erosion hazards.
1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard
areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far
away from coastal hazard areas as practical.
The term Water-devendent use means a business or other activity which
can only be conducted in, on, over, or adiacent to a water bodv because
such activity requires direct access to that water body, and which involves,
as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water. Existing uses
should be maintained and enhanced where possible and appropriate.
Portion of the property are located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
as identified by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map. Portions of the
Transient Motel building, proposed outdoor terrace, a portion of the
parking area and leaching fields are all proposed seaward of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line. It is recommended that the structures be relocated
to the greatest extent practical to meet the above policy and sub-policies
2, Avoid reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part
of a water-dependent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in
coastal hazard areas.
2
The Transient Motel and accessory uses are proposed to be built within the
footprint of the Oyster processing facility. The use is not a "water
dependent" use. However. the percent of value loss has not been
determined and therefore a recommendation on whether the proposal
meets this policy cannot be made. The proposed marina is a water
dependent use.
3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding
and erosion hazards as practical. Maintaining existing development
and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for:
a. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or
in coastal waters.
The Transient Hotel. restaurant and other accessory uses do not
require a coastal location and therefore are inconsistent with this
sub-policy. It is recommended that the structures be designed
and/or located to avoid flooding and erosion hazards.
b. water-dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards.
The proposed marina is the only water dependent use within the
proposal. There is no ability to relocate the marina.
c. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public
infrastructure, or major public facilities.
A public use is not proposed and therefore the action in
inconsistent with this sub-policy.
d. sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct the main building which
houses the Transient Hotel. restaurant and other accessory uses
within the original footprint of the Oyster processing facility.
However. the building is located within Flood Zone AE Zone
Elevation 9. an "Area of Special Flood Hazard". It is
recommended that the applicant amend the proposal to the greatest
extent practical to avoid and/or mitigate all potential flooding and
erosion hazards.
5. Manage development in floodplains outside of coastal hazard areas so
as to reduce adverse environmental effects, minimize the need for
future structural flood protection measures, or expansion of existing
protection measures and to meet federal flood insurance program
standards.
The main building which houses the Transient Motel. restaurant with other
accessory uses. sleeping units 16C. 17C and 18C, the pool house and pool,
and the Transient Motel Private Cafeteria are located in Flood Zone AE
3
Zone Elevation 9, an "Area of Special Flood Hazard". Therefore the
proposed action is inconsistent with the above policy and sub-policies.
Flood Zone AE Zone Elevation 9 corresponds to the 100 year floodplains
that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods. A
100 year flood refers to an elevation that has a I % chance of being
exceeded or equaled each year. It is recommended that the applicant
amend the proposal to the greatest extent practical to mitigate all potential
flooding hazards.
4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features
provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced.
Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited.
C. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by:
1. providing for natural supply and movement of unconsolidated
materials and for water and wind transport
2. limiting intrusion of structures into coastal waters
D. A limited interference with coastal processes may be allowed where the
principal purpose of the structure is necessary to:
1. simulate natural processes where existing structures have altered the
coast
2. provide necessary public benefits for flooding and erosion protection
3. provide for the efficient operation of water-dependent uses
Limited interference is to be mitigated to ensure that there is no adverse impact to
adjacent property, to natural coastal processes and natural resources, and, if
undertaken by a private property owner, does not incur significant direct or
indirect public costs.
4.3 Protect public lands and public trust lands and use of these lands when undertaking
all erosion or flood control projects.
A. Retain ownership of public trust lands which have become upland areas due
to fill or accretion resulting from erosion control projects. (However, in
situations where erosion control projects have created public land updrift,
but also resulted in damage or erosion to public lands and public trust lands
down drift of the control structure, the public benefit of that structure or
project should be re-examined and appropriate modifications made as
conditions suggest.)
Public lands on the property involve all waters of the state up to the high tide
mark. The placement of a channel bulkheads entering the marina has caused the
re-nourislunent of the beach to the northeast of the bulkheads (updrift) and the
severe erosion of the beach to the southwest of the channel bulkheads (downdrift).
This area has eroded to landward of the shoreline east/west timber bulkhead
forcing the low/high tidal range to move landward from the historic location. The
high tide mark is now located north of the failed shoreline east/west timber
4
bulkhead. The alteration of the tidal range on the property is a direct result of the
channel bulkheads and therefore it is recommended that the length of the
bulkheads in the channel be re-evaluated to allow the beach to naturally re-
establish and improve public access in the area southwest of the channel.
B. Avoid losses or likely losses of public trust lands or use of these lands, including
public access along the shore, which can be reasonably attributed to or
anticipated to result from erosion protection structures.
The beach to the northeast of the channel bulkheads is accessible to the public UP
to the northeast bulkhead. The beach southwest of the channel bulkheads has
significantly eroded and therefore public access is limited. It is recommended
that the length of the channel bulkheads be re-evaluated to allow the beach to
naturally re-establish.
4.4 Manage navigation infrastructure to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes.
A. Manage stabilized inlets to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes.
1. Include sand bypassing at all engineered or stabilized inlets which
interrupt littoral processes.
2. Avoid extending jetties when it will increase disrnption of coastal
processes.
3. Consider removing existing jetties when they do not protect existing
water-dependent uses and disrupt coastal processes.
As indicated above the channel bulkheads have disrupted the normal sand
drifting patterns and have caused adverse impacts to the natural coastal
processes. The length of both the north and south bulkheads should be re-
evaluated and re-desi gned to improve the natural sand downdrift process to the
greatest extent practical to meet the above sub-policy.
B. Design channel construction and maintenance to protect and enhance natural
protective features and prevent destabilization of adjacent areas.
See above response.
Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters.
A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH,
dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and
turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and
toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils, floatables, refuse, and suspended
solids).
5
In June of2005, a Phase II Environmental Assessment report was prepared for the
site bv Longshore Environmental Inc. The report concludes that the site contains
MTBE's, areas of petroleum impact, and levels of copper and zinc that exceed
NYDEC recommended soil cleanup objectives.
One concern with the results listed in the report is that soil analysis was not
performed at all areas containing underground storage tanks, including a 10,000
gallon Diesel underground storage tank. It is strongly recommended that the
Board require a that all soil analysis be required for all underground storage tanks
storing petroleum product and a remediation plan to clean up the contaminated
sites be submitted to the Town..
In addition, any dredge spoil and fill soils should be tested for contaminants prior
to use on site.
Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem.
6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold
Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent
and other lands under their jurisdiction.
1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in
Trustee permit conditions.
TO BE VERIFIED
The proposed setback from the Transient Motel building to the bulkhead is XXX
feet. The proposed setbacks from the Transient Motel Cafeteria building is 55
feet (wood decking), from 16c, 17c, 18c sleeping rooms is XXX feet. a minimum
setback of 100 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 275 and a minimum setback of
75 feet is required by Article XXIII Section 100-2398 of the Town of Southold
Town Code. Please require that the applicant amend the application to meet the
above policv to the greatest extent possible
Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of South old from solid waste and
hazardous substances and wastes.
8.2 Manage hazardous wastes to protect public health and control pollution.
C. Remediate inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Future use 0/ a site should
determine the appropriate level o/remediation.
The Town's Site Plan application process will uncover inactive hazardous
waste disposal sites. Remediation efforts will be specified during the
environmental review of those sites prior to development or redevelopment.
6
8.3 Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances
hazardous to the environment and public health.
A. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the
environment that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife
resources.
The Town's Site Plan application process will determine whether proposed
land use activities will involve toxic substances. Protection measures to
prevent their release to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife
resources, will be determined during the environmental review.
Further, the dredging of toxic material from underwater lands and the
deposition of such material shall be conducted in the most mitigative manner
possible so as not to endanger fish and wildlife resources, in either the short
or long term.
E. Take appropriate action to correct all unregulated releases of substances
hazardous to the environment.
In June of2005. a Phase II Environmental Assessment report was prepared for the site bv
Longshore Environmental Inc. The report concludes that the site contains MTBE's. areas
of petroleum impact. and levels of copper and zinc that exceed NYDEC recommended
soil cleanup obiectives.
One concern with the results listed in the report is that soil analvsis was not performed at
all areas containing underground storage tanks. including a 10.000 gallon Diesel
underground storage tank. It is stronglv recommended that the Boards require that a soil
analvsis be required for all underground storage tanks storing petroleum products and a
remediation plan to clean UP the contaminated sites be submitted to the Town..
Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands,
and public resources of the Town of South old.
The L WRP states that "public ownership of this site mav be more compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood than commercial operation. It would also provide access
within this reach". The propertv and proposed use is private; there is no proposal for public
access. so therefore the proposal. as submitted. is inconsistent with the above policv.
Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-
dependent uses in suitable locations.
10.1 (a) Protect existing water-dependent uses.
The term Water-deoendent use means a business or other activitv which can on Iv be conducted
in. on. over. or adiacent to a water bodv because such activitv requires direct access to that water
bodv. and which involves. as an integral part of such activitv. the use of the water. Existing uses
should be maintained and enhanced where possible and appropriate.
7
Proposed Marina: The proposed action will restore a derelict shellfish processing plant. Due to
several factors the viabilitv of the continued use of a Ovster processing plant in this location is
not feasible. The plan incorporates a marina use which is a water dependent use that requires
direct access to the water bodv. Therefore the marina use is consistent with 10.1 (a) above
provided that best management practices are emploved to the fullest extent.
10.1 (b) Improve the economic viability of water-dependent uses by allowing for non-water
dependent accessory and multiple uses, particularly water enhanced and maritime
support services where sufficient upland exists.
The term Water-enhanced use means a use or activitv which does not require a location adiacent
to coastal waters. but whose location on the waterfront adds to the public use and enioyment of
the water's edge. Water-enhanced uses are primarilv recreational. cultural. retail. or
entertainment in nature. These uses mav be necessary for the successful financial operation and
viability of water-deoendent uses.
Proposed Transient Motel: The proposed Transient Motel use is a special exception use in the
MIl zoning district and a water enhanced use and is therefore consistent with Policy 10.1 (b).
Proposed Restaurant: The proposed restaurant use is a special exception use in the MIl zoning
district and a water enhanced use and is therefore consistent with Policy 10.1 (b).
Cc: Amy Ford, Senior Planner
8
ROBERT F. MUIR
2&50 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 11939
Ms Jeri Woodhouse, Chainnan
Planning Board
Southold, NY 11971
October 24, 2006
Dear Chairman Woodhouse:
Re: Gaia Circle-Oki-Do
Thank you for the privilege of speaking at Monday's Scoping hearing. After listening to
all the speakers it appears that Gaia is trying to concentrate an awfully lot of activity into
a relatively limited area, especially when you consider the traffic and the streets available
to handle the traffic.
The proposed restaurant and deck located at the water edge could be very attractive to
outside activities such as weddings, receptions, large festivals or other large gatherings.
This possibility brings attention to the need for some strict regulations as to PARKING,
Noise Control, Limitation of Hours, Limitation as to the Number of Special Events
allowed during the year.
We spoke to Mrs. MO<lre Monday about parking, specifically Why Parking along the
Emergency Road? She informed us that if the need arose they bad the right to coovert
the "Hidden Parking" to actual parking anytime the demand arose. Did you understand
that there would possibly be parking all along the "Emergency Road"? Does that mean
that they can override the plans at will?
We have a quiet and peaceful residential area and it would be a disaster to have that
peace and way oflife destroyed by something that does not enhance OUT community or
provides a benefit to East Marion.
Respectfully submitted, .
.~.1:l~ Cl-77'~
'/fCiJJ< jJ)&~
Robert and.~ Muir
2850 Gil.ette Dri~e
East Marion, NY I 1939
Two,\! EY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY,
DUBIN & QUARTARAUO ILl'
Attorneys at Luw
HIOMAS A. TWOMEY, Jfl
STEPHEN O. LATHAM
JOHN F. SlIEA, III
CHFnSTOPHEfl D. K~:LLEY
DAVID M. DUBIN"
JAY P. OUARTAflAFlO T
f'E'TER M MorT
JANICE L SNEAD
JANE DiGIACOMO
PHILIP D. NYKAMP
MARTIN D. FINNEGANo
ANNE MARIE GOODALE
M"ilong ^c1df8SS
F'osl Oftice 80x 9398
Riverhead
New York 11901 -9398
Location
o~ COUNSEL
KENNETH P LAVALLE
JOAN r HATFIELD l:I
LAUflA I. SCUA7ZIN 6
33 West Second Street
Riverhead
New York 11901 9398
www.suffolklaw,corT\
BRYAN C VAN COTr.
CYRUS G DOLCE, JA <0-.
LISA A. AZZATO-;.
KATHRYN GALLI
DANIEL G. WANI r
JENNIFER A. ANOALORO
KELLY [C. KINIRONS
T8Iepl'0f1" 631727,2180
F",,~jmne 631.727.1767
BY HAND
L_l.....INTAXIITIONt
LL M IN ESTATE PLANN'NG <>
NY ~ LA BARS 0
NY & cr BARS "'-
NY. NJ. & PA BARS 0
NY & NJ BAR'> ..
Ny. DC. GA. & FL BAAS +
NY. NJ. CT..!. FL BAAS _
October 26, 2006
Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
SCTM# 1000-038.00-07.00-007001
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
This firm represents Cleaves Point Condominium Association ("Cleaves Point"), neighbors
directly to the west of the above-referenced premises and the proposed site of the Gaia Holistic
Center.
We appeared at the scoping session held on October 16, 2006 and voiced our client's concerns
regarding the scope of the applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). As we
stated at the session, we are presenting those concerns in writing at this time. In addition, we are
submitting an independent traffic study prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated August 3,
2006, and the written comments of Robert Grover, Chief Environmental Consultant for
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., dated October 24,2006.
The entrance to and exit from Cleaves Point is on Shipyard Lane. The proposed ingress and
egress locations to the Gaia Holistic Center are situated directly across from those of Cleaves
Point. As such, and for other reasons, a serious traffic conflict is created. While traffic is one of
the primary concerns of Cleaves Point, there are many other issues of environmental concern as
outlined below.
TRAF'FIC
The applicant's traffic study concludes that there will be no detrimental effect on traffic
conditions, which conclusion is not only self-serving, but misleading. The conclusion is not
20 MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937
631.324.1200
51 HILL STREET
SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968
631.287.0090
105 ROUTE 112, FL 1S
PORT JEFFERSON STA., NY 11776
631.928.4400
400 TOWNLlNE ROAD
HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
631.265.1414
56340 MAIN ROAD. P. a. BOX 325
SOUTHOLO, NY 11971
631.7652300
based on realistic assessments. Cleaves Point's independent traffic study raises significant
issues, as briefly discussed below, and which are more fully discussed in the annexed report.
.
It is highly unlikely that only overnight guests will be using the facility;
.
It is highly unlikely that the restaurant will limit public patrons;
.
The delivery activities for such a proposed high-end facility are not accurately reflected;
.
The fact that all the many amenities will have to be maintained, thereby requirIng
maintenance vehicles to constantly enter and leave the facility, is not accurately reflected;
.
As the Greenman-Pedersen traffic study states, with the increased traffic to and from the
facility, there likely will be a 2 to 2 1/2 minute wait to enter onto Route 25 from Shipyard
Lane, which wait, undoubtedly, will lead to unsafe driving choices, especially given the
blind spot looking west on Route 25;
.
Public transportation to and from the facility is highly unlikely and purely speculative
given the high-end nature and remote location of the facility;
.
There are 3 driveways proposed to enter and exit the facility, the main entrance of which
is directly across from the access to Cleaves Point This configuration presents a
dangerous condition;
.
Three entrances will prove confusing to visitors, and require more signage than would be
necessary with fewer entrances. Further, 3 entrances will require more disturbance or
breaking up of the screening of the facility. There should be 2 entrances at the most-
one for service vehicles and one for all others;
.
Using Gillette Road as an alternate access to the facility will greatly reduce traffic
problems on Shipyard Lane and any backup of vehicles, both service and guest, entering
the facility. In the alternative, one road can be used to enter the facility and the other
road to exit the facility. Shipvard Lane must not bare the burden alone. Sharing the
burden of traffic must be analyzed and considered. Or, one road can be used for
employee and service vehicles and the other road for guests;
.
There should be consideration of any pedestrian traffic and whether sidewalks would be
warranted, or the widening of Shipyard Lane;
.
Will large buses or trailers be allowed to enter the facility? If so, the noise and resultant
emissions should be analyzed, and they should be able to park and turn around inside the
facility;
.
The ever-increasing year-round ferry traffic must be considered.
PARKING AND LIGHTING
The plan calls for parking to be spread out over (3) three sides of the property, including the
entire length of Shipyard Lane. It will be required that all the roadways and parking areas be lit.
. Cleaves Point is concerned that the lighting will produce a "glow" or "halo" effeet. If the
parking were centralized, such an dIect could be minimized.
. There must not be any parking on Shipyard Lane.
. What kind of lighting will there be at the restaurant? Will there be an outdoor deck or
outdoor seating with lighting? Again, Cleaves Point is concerned about the "glow" or
"halo" effect of any outdoor lighting, as well as the noise.
BUFFER
. What kind of buffer will there be along Shipyard Lane?
THE MARINA
.
Will fuel be stored on the premises and, if so, who would have access to the fuel pumps?
REVETMENT
It is our understanding that water has broken through the old existing bulkhead, which means
that the high water mark has changed and is now closer to the existing structures. This fact
necessarily will effect the required setbacks. As a result, the wetlands should be retlagged to
determine the appropriate setbacks.
.
What steps are the DEC and the Board of Trustees going to take to preserve the existing
wetlands?
.
Will there be a study as to the impact any dredging will have on vegetation and wildlife,
including the Osprey nests?
.
What erosion control measures and practices will be instituted?
.
What impact will the location of the proposed revetment have on the existing revetment
at Cleaves Point and the surrounding areas?
DRAINAGE
The plan calls for the installation of drainage systems in close proximity to the wetlands.
Cleaves Point is concerned that the water table will be effected thereby. There presently exist
drainage problems on Shipyard Lane.
.
Will the applicant be required to make any improvements regarding drainage that will
address the existing problems?
.
Will there be any drainage into the bay?
PUBLIC WATER
The plan includes many man-made ponds, pools and facilities requiring a very substantial water
supply.
.
Where will the requisite water come from?
.
Will the applicant be required to install new water mains along Shipyard Lane?
FEMA REQUIREMENTS
FEMA requires that all structures maintain an elevation of at least 10 feet above sea level. The
existing plan includes structures violative of this rule.
.
Some of the proposed buildings are only 6 feet above sea level.
.
J f the buildings are moved landward as a result, the visual impact on the neighbors would
be lessened.
THE DUMPSTER
Cleaves Point is concemed that the proposed location of the dumpsters will create noise and
traffic to and from the dumpsters, and the likelihood of vermin.
.
If the dumpsters were moved closer to the main building, these concems would be
mitigated.
EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY
The existing building at the site is in severe disrepair. The site is also full of debris. Roof panels
have been blown off, and will continue to blow off, causing safety concerns for the surrounding
neighbors
.
Will the owner/applicant be required to address these safety issues at this time?
.
The area presently constitutes an attractive nuisance to the neighborhood.
NOISE
.
What efforts will be made to control the noise from the public areas?
.
Will there be outdoor parties, concerts or special events bringing in crowds for a day(s) or
night(s)?
.
Will construction be limited to weekdays and certain hours?
.
Will there be loudspeakers, outdoor music or announcements? If so, will the hours be
regulated?
.
Will commercial deliveries be limited to certain hours?
We trust that the Planning Board, as lead agency, will require the applicant to study and address
these issues so that the Board can take a hard look at them and make certain that they are fully
addressed in the OEIS and FEIS.
We appreciate your including this letter and its attachments as part of the record of this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
v,~ 'ruty y"",,~
K",~
/enc.
cc: Cleaves Point Condominium Association
GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
Ms. Sue Hallock
Cleaves Point Condominiums
PO Box 29
Greenport, NY 11944
August J, 2006
RE Traffic Study Assessment
Gaia Holistic Center Traffic Study Review
Dear Ms. Hallock;
I have reviewed the traffic impact study prepared for the Gaia Holistic Center application.
The purpose of the applicant's traffic study is to assess the present traffic conditions, estimate
additional traffic the project is expected to generate and then quantify impacts that may be imposed
upon the local road network. While the study was prepared in a generally acceptable manner, its
conclusion that the "... Center will not have a detrimental effect on traffic conditions on the
surrounding roadway 5ystem in the vicinity of the site.. " is misleading and thus, self-serving
Shipyard Lane is a quiet residential street leading to the edge of Peconic Bay. According to
the report, the weekend peak hour generation of trips for the project is about 118. Later in this
report we take exception to the generation of trips and believe the project's true trip-making
potential may be understated. However, accepting the report's projections for the moment, our
recent observations noted 62 vehicles either entering or exiting Shipyard Lane during the Saturday
midday peak hour. This means that the community can expect a 90% increase in vehicular activity
on their roadway. While the additional car a minute may not seem significant in absolute numbers
to the applicant, it will definitely have both a noticeable and detrimental impact on the local
residents.
Our evaluation of the report identified several issues of concern that need to be addressed
and considered by the board. They are as follows:
Trip Generation. The report states that only overnight guests would be using the on-site
facilities such as the spa etc. This does not seem realistic since it is likely some folks
would want to visit the site for daily use only. This could amount to a substantial number
of unaccounted traffic activity at the site. Similarly, restricting most of the available
seating in the restaurant for overnight guests is again an unlikely scenario. The report
suggests that only 72 of 198 seats in the restaurant will be reserved for public use. If the
restaurant is there and customers come, they will be accommodated. This is an additional
generation of traffic the study does not consider.
Lastly, we are not confident that the trip rate for hotels utilized in the study will
accurately reflect the delivery activity such a high-end resort-type facility would require
0:\2006\2006324 Gaia Traffic Study\wi:l report 080406.doc
325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702
Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631) 422-3479
GPI
There are not a significantly large number of rooms but the site supports large landscaped
grounds, spa, 2 restaurants, a marina and pool All these amenities require maintenance
and supplies It is likely that off-site vendors requiring various trucks to access the site
will perform much of the maintenance. As such, it is likely that the vehicle trip rate,
which is based upon the number of rooms and is low compared to the site amenities
requirements, will not account for the truck and delivery activity this site will necessitate.
We suggest that the applicant adjust the generation numbers.
When all these potential understated trips are considered, the site can generate much
more vehicular activity than estimated.
LEDD Certification Rideshare Credit. This credit actually amounts to a very small
number of vehicles: three trips during the am or pm period and 5 during Saturday.
However, while seeming inconsequential, it is curious that users of such a high - end
facility would really be ridesharing. It appears to be an ironic incompatibility that facility
guests with the means to visit the Holistic Center would do so by sharing a ride in a van.
Furthermore, as the van itself generates one trip in and one trip out for such an operation
there really isn't any true meaningful credit and thus shouldn't even be noted. The
mention of this credit seems much ado about nothing.
Sight Distance. Sight distance exiting from Shipyard Lane poses no problem in winter
months but, due to a large K wanzan Cherry tree on the opposite side of the road where
the road bends northward, west of Shipyard Lane, it may impede the line of sight when
the tree is leafed out and in bloom. The photo below shows some obscurity and, since
speed can be an issue here and motorists have to patiently wait to find available gaps in
order to enter SR 25, the sight distance can be a factor. We suggest the Town seek to do
some selective pruning at this location whatever the outcome of the applicant's request is.
LOOKING WEST ALONG RT. 25
GPI
Capacity Analysis. The applicant's traffic engineer conducted intersection capacity
analyses and the results are shown in the report. The table below summarizes the
capacity analysis results for the critical Shipyard Lane approach to SR 25, as reported in
the traffic study. This intersection is a stop-controlled unsignalized location and thus, it
is the ability of the side street traffic to find available safe gaps to enter the major thru
street (SR 25) that is measured.
xlstmg 0 u UI UI mo
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
(sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh)
AM 16.8 C 2\.2 C 27.4 D 25.4 D
PM 18.3 C 22.3 C 29.7 D 28.4 D
Sun 3\.6 D 50.5 F 150.3 F 129.3 F
E' ,
N B ild
B'ld
B 'Id/ d
As can be seen under the existing conditions, the current operations work reasonably well
and, while undoubtedly there are periods of long waits, most times during the peak hours
the operations produce acceptable results Under the No Build condition, the levels of
service worsen a bit during the week but it is the Sunday weekend period that experiences
a more dramatic drop in operations This is because the analysis is very sensitive to the
reduction in gaps on the artery caused by increased traffic flow. Even though the future
condition was performed for a period of only 3 years later, the operations would degrade
to an F. We do note however, that it is barely in the F range. The average motorist
exiting Shipyard Lane would have to wait about 50 seconds to enter SR 25, up from the
current 32 seconds.
Under the Build conditions, it is evident how dramatic an effect the proposed site would
have on the safe operations of the intersection and specifically those motorists seeking to
exit Shipyard Lane. The weekend levels of service drop threefold, creating a situation
that would result in excessive delays and hazardous conditions as impatient motorists
would make unsafe decisions in trying to enter SR 25. A motorist under the future
proposed condition would have to wait 2 Yz minutes to enter the roadway. While
somewhat helpful to the overall approach, the report freely admits that the proposed
roadway modification ofwidernng the northbound Shipyard approach to accommodate a
segregated right turn lane "will not address the high delays associated with the
northbound left turns out of Shipyard Lane...". Even under a modified Build scenario,
motorists would still have to wait for an average of 2 minutes. Thus, it is puzzling that
with such a drastic change in level of service, the report states "the Gaia Holistic Center
development will have no significant adverse traffic impact... ", This of course does not
consider the negative effects of the additional generation of traffic that the study may be
overlooking as previously noted, which would further exacerbate the problems.
It should be clearly understood that the project will have a dramatic negative effect on the
operations at this intersection and no simple mitigation is available.
CiPI
Accident Experience The report repeatedly aSserts that the rate of accidents and safe
traffic operations will not be negatively impacted. While currently accidents at the
Shipyard intersection are not a problem, most assuredly as the gaps for motorist's to exit
the street decrease so dramatically and their impatience increases, accidents will occur.
Any motorist subjected to a wait of 2 or 2 Y, minutes, especially in a North Fork
environment where they seek to escape such problems, will lose patience and make
unsafe choices. It is inevitable.
Public Transportation The amount of space afforded this topic in the report implies
that customer/employee use of local public transportation is a real possibility. Similar to
our comments about the rideshare credit, any use of ferry or train service still requires a
van or taxi service to the site and thus generates its own trip anyway. We don't believe
this will happen and certainly not to any extent that makes it worthwhile to discuss in the
report and attempt to claim credit, directly or indirectly, regarding its speculative use. Our
opinion is that if a credit is warranted, then a study should employ it. If on the other hand
it is so subjective or minor that the traffic consultant opts not to use it then it should not
even be discussed or mentioned at all in the study. It simply appears that there is an
attempt to garner an indirect credit or kudos for not using it.
Site Access Location. The site plan calls for three driveways to service the site, with the
main entrance to be located directly opposite the driveway to the Cleaves Point
Condominiums. A secondary entrance would be located further south near the dead end
and an entrance at the north end of the site would be used for deliveries and service
vehicles. Since the traffic report seems to assert that the project will not generate
significant traffic volumes, we do not understand the need for three driveways. The
photo below shows the quiet nature of the environs with the entrance to the condominium
development off to the left.
TRANQUIL SHIPYARD LANE WIlli GAIA PROJECT SITE ON RIGHT
GPI
The project will significantly alter the bucolic environment currently afforded to the
residents. Locating the driveways opposite each other further exacerbates the situation.
There is no traffic operation rationale that warrants this access configuration on this dead
end street. Aligning the two driveways only serves to ensure that the busy activity of the
Holistic Center is placed squarely on the front door of the existing residential
condominium development, creating the normal conflicts and delays associated with such
an operation. Few visitors would pass the main entrance to use the secondary access
driveway to the south.
ENTRANCE TO CLEA YES POINT DEVELOPMENT
It seems that a far better solution would be to consolidate the two proposed customer use
driveways of the Gaia site to one and locate it further north, away from the condominium
driveway. From a planning standpoint, if all the vehicular movements can at least be
located away from the condominium's driveway and thus, their front door, the residents
maintain at least some measure of harmony. There is sufficient real estate along the
frontage of the proposed site to accomplish this and preclude significant traffic activity
adjacent to the condominiums and the final dead end stretch of Shipyard Lane.
Alternative Access Distribution. The report indicates another entrance/exit location
that is to be used for emergency access only. This driveway would access Cleaves Point
Road and thus, Gillette Drive immediately to the east of the project site. Gillette Drive is
similar to Shipyard Lane in width and land use.
We understand that the applicant has proposed employees use this rear exit. We also
suggest that the location be used and signed as an alternative access/egress location. If
customers of the holistic center are encouraged to use this driveway, it should offer some
improvement, however limited, to the Shipyard Lane intersection.
GPI
Roadway Modifications This section of the report warrants some discussion The
report offers two build alternatives to help alleviate the adverse delays caused by the
project. The first is to widen SR 25 to permit left exiting traffic to cross the roadway in
two steps by having such vehicles cross the eastbound lanes and queue in a median lane
waiting for a gap to occur in the westbound lanes before merging in. This suggestion is
too expensive, probably requires property acquisition and thus, has virtually has no
chance of being accepted by the community. It would also require approved by the
NYSDOT. Lastly, queuing vehicles within a median is not a safe alternative.
The second alternative is to install a traffic signal. The report noted that the community
may be opposed to the installation of the signal. The nearest traffic control signal is the
flashing signal at SR 25NCR 49. Historically, many residents of the east end and
particularly the North Fork, are opposed to signal installation as it is perceived that such
equipment is a blight on the picturesque landscape.
There is no magic panacea here to mitigate the traffic delays that will occur.
Encouraging use of the rear gate on to Gillette Drive would be helpful, but unless all
traffic exiting the Gaia Center is forced to leave via that driveway location, little
improvement will be seen at Shipyard Lane. Also, simply pushing the traffic to Gillette
Drive may also be simply pushing the problem over to another street. The true
advantages and disadvantages need to be studied.
While we do not like to install traffic signals as a matter of course, in this case, signal
installation will probably reap significant benefits should the Gaia Center be approved
and constructed. If this project moves forward, the Town should seriously consider the
installation of a signal, and its entire cost (about $80,000), should be borne by the
applicant.
In summary, while the report states that there will be no adverse traffic impacts, we have
clearly demonstrated with the report's own statistics that such a statement is fictional. Delays
increase substantially and accidents will undoubtedly occur that presently do not. We see that as a
significant impact. We have identified several issues that require the report's revision and further
consideration of the necessary mitigation that is needed
Sincerely,
GPI I Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
t:i~:;:F
Vice President
Director of Transportation Services
GPI Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
October 24, 2006
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Gaia Holistic Center
GP! File No. 2000303
Members of the Planning Board:
We have reviewed Draft Scope for the preparation of a DEIS for the referenced
project, and provide the following comments for your consideration as Lead Agency.
We have a number of concerns regarding the proposed marina and
shoreline work. The DEIS should provide a detailed description of the proposed
revetment, with plans and cross-sections, including materials to be used, including stone
sizes. The discussion should include an analysis of this structure on both the physical
(sediment transport, etc) and biological littoral processes. Any wetland vegetation,
including submerged aquatic vegetation, should be accurately mapped, and the project's
impacts on these resources should be evaluated.
The boat basin refurbishment raises many important questions. First, bulkhead
replacement can only be considered "in-place" if the existing bulkhead is "functional."
Typically, with old sites such as this, that is not the case. If not, then the actual shoreline,
behind any failing bulkhead sections, should be mapped and incorporated into the marina
Page 1 015
325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702
Tel (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631) 422-3479
www.gpinet.com
GPI
design. The extent to which this impacts upland design considerations should be
disclosed.
The proposal calls for the dredging of approximately 2500 cubic yards of spoil
from the marina (that equates to 125-250 dump trucks). The dredge spoil is to be used as
"beach nourishment, fill behind stone revetment and/or (upland) disposal." The DEIS
should present testing results on this material, including grain size, organic content, and,
of course, the presence of any contaminants. Dredge spoil from an enclosed marina is
almost never suitable for use as beach nourishment, as it is too fine grained and often
contains organic material. If the proposed revetment is to be placed along the existing
shoreline, than there will be no need for fill behind it. Therefore, it must be assumed that
the dredge spoil will have to be transported off-site for disposal. This off-site disposal
area must be identified.
In tenus of regulatory procedures, the NYSDEC defines maintenance dredging as
dredging to restore an area to its previous depths. Documentation is needed regarding the
proposed dredging depth and prior surveys demonstrating that the depth previously
existed. Otherwise, the dredging will be considered "new dredging," which is
presumptively incompatible with the tidal wetlands regulations. Finally, with regard to
dredging, marina dredge spoil is typically 80%-95% water content. This may require that
it be dewatered, on site, prior to transport. The location and design of any temporary
dewatering facilities need to be presented along with a discussion of odor potential and
control and vector control.
GPI
Turning our attention to the upland, an extensive man-made lake/stream feature is
proposed. Although this feature could provide a wonderful site amenity, there are certain
details which need to be discussed in the DEIS. As with the dredging, the quantities,
nature, and disposal of excavated materials needs to be presented. The depth of the
proposed water feature and its relationship to groundwater is important. Typically, for a
feature such as this to function properly, it must be equipped with a liner system to
prevent the water from simply draining into the surrounding soils. We will assume that a
liner system is proposed. This being the case, in terms of site hydrology, the water
feature must be considered impervious surface. Details of the water feature, including
quantity and source of initial and make-up water, need to be presented. Also, details of
any filtration and/or treatment system should be required, including a discussion of vector
control. Will the pond have fish? If so, what provisions will be included to prevent
attracting raccoons, a serious nuisance wildlife problem and health threat, to the site?
Also, plans for maintenance of the water feature during the winter should be discussed.
The proposal calls for Japanese gardens. Again, these could provide a nice site
amenity. However, the species to be planted should be discussed. Any species
considered invasive, such as Wisteria and bamboo, should not be permitted.
With regard to drainage, the scoping memo states that drainage on site will be
accommodated using drywells and the man-made lake. As noted above, this artificial
water feature must be considered impervious, and will not contribute to on-site
accommodation of drainage. In fact, the opposite is true. Being impervious, the water
feature must be added to the 93,068 square feet of building area, the parking area, on-site
GPI
roadways, and any other impervious surfaces, as areas which have a 90-100% runoff
coetTicient for drainage calculation purposes. Given the site's shoreline location, it must
be assumed that groundwater is relatively shallow, which could impact on the ability of
dry wells to function. This must be analyzed and considered in the drainage calculations.
It should be noted that if the water feature is to contain fish, such as koi or goldfish,
which would be typical for a Japanese garden setting, then the feature must be designed
to prevent surface waters from draining into it, as surface drainage can be toxic to these
fish.
In terms of site history, the past uses of the property, as discussed in the draft
scope, raise concerns about site contamination. Are the UST's still on site? If so, have
they been registered with the SCOHS. What are the plans for their removal? At a
minimum, a summary of a Phase I environmental site assessment should be included in
the OEIS.
In the section on water resources, the water consumption calculations should
include water to fill the pond and provide evaporative make-up, unless this is to be done
using the proposed irrigation well. The evaluation of the impact of the proposed
irrigation well should include a drawdown analysis and a determination of the potential
for salt-water intrusion. We note that the project proposes to use a Chromaglass
treatment system for sanitary waste disposal. In addition to the details specified in the
draft scope, the OEIS should include a discussion of the current SCOHS policy on the
approval of such systems.
The issue of transportation has been addressed in Mr. Salatti's letter.
GPI
Regarding cultural resources, the entire North Fork is considered archacologically
sensitive. Therefore, a Phase IA study and report, at a minimum, should be included
As noted in the draft scope, the OEIS will describe and evaluate reasonable
alternatives. We believe that an alternative scale or scales should be Included as an
alternative(s). The proposed project appears to include a large mass, including all of the
impervious surfaces, for this property. Presentation of a reduced scale alternative should
be included on the OEIS.
Please contact me if you have any comments or questions on this analysis of the
Draft Scope. We look forward to assisting you with review of the OEIS.
Sincerely,
GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
~{jj~
Robert Grover
Director
Environmental and Coastal Sciences
O:\1000\2000303\CORRES\TRANSMITT ALS\GaiaPlanningBoard l02506.Joc
SCOTT A. RUSSELL
"""";;;;;:,::= 8UPERVISOR~~
-- TOWN HAl I ~ 53095 MA[)'j)1.0~1Ji I
ITr\'; re (rUFc~ (6~ I) '('Ru5 ~I ~ ~~ II
\\9~ \r:; liD ~ U \'J ~ .,l
UCLCT '-~~~~ -!.
','ili
",,'d
\ !
I '__~
1,~'n',;""",,,",,~,,,,,./~__,,,,,,,,_,,,~_~........-:__,s-:'.:::':"'::"':~:::~:'~~=A'_-..)8
'C_, , "Jefilynlf Woodhouse
Chairperson - Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Sub+'
m
rm
JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. 13S
ENGINEER AF
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971
Tel. (631) ~765 ~ 1560
JMv1 I E.RICHTER@TOWN.SOtJTIIOLO.NY.US
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re:
Dear Mrs, Woodhouse:
August 25, 2006
Oki-Do Ltd, Site Plan
Shipyard lane, East Marion, NY
SCTM #: 1000-39-07-7,1
As per a request from your office, I have reviewed the Site Plans for the above referenced project.
The Site Plan drawings have been prepared by the office of Young & Young, Land Surveyor; and the office
of Butt"Otruba-O'Connor Architects, AlA. These drawings have been dated 3/17/04 & 12/28/05, Please
consider the following:
1, Please note that the proposed disturbance resulting from construction activities and grading of this
site will be greater than one (1) acre in area, This project will require coverage from NYS Department of
Environmental Protection (DEC) under the Phase II State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
Program, The Developer must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from
Construction Activity (GP-02-01) prior to the initiation of construction activities,
2, Drawing C-3: This existing condition drawing sheet shows the existing topography of the site and a
flood Zone line of AE (EI 9), These two items need to be coordinated, While the flood zone line was
interpolated from a large scale map it should also be modified to align with the nine (9') foot Contour that
runs through the property, This item should be reviewed by the Building Department.
3, It is apparent that the main access to the site is proposed by the way of Shipyard Lane, I have
reviewed this item with Mr, Harris and he has requested road improvement to Shipyard that would include
resurfacing of the road and the installation of new drainage systems in the Town Right-of-Way, Additional
drainage should be incorporated into the project design to recharge storm-water run-off before it reaches
Peconic Bay,
4, The proposed access roadway to the Managers Residence may require Excavation, Fill and/or
Grading to achieve a stable road design, The impact of this new road on adjacent property to the East
should be dealt with, Landscape Buffers, the maintenance of storm-water run-off and the elimination of
erosion problems should be addressed,
5, The Proposed Restaurant Building Setbacks from the High Water Mark should be reviewed with the
Zoning board of Appeals and the Town Trustees, It is understood that there is an existing structure but to
what extent will this building be reused? By the time the existing structure is made flood compliant it would
be well over a 50% threshold for new work, In addition, the proposed design of the new facility does not
appear to utilize any of the existing structure with the exception of its footprint. Therefore, it is recommended
that the proposed new Restaurant facility be relocated to meet the minimum standards of Town Zoning and
enhance the poliCies of the LWRP, This item should also be reviewed with Mark Terry for LWRP
Consistency,
Page J.- of 2..
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson - Planning Board
Re: Oki-Do LId Site Plan
SCTM#: 1000-39-07-7.1
August 25, 2006
Page 2. of ~
6. Cross section "A-A" on sheet A-4 and the Rock Revetment Detail on sheet A-5 indicate the toe of
Revetment to be seaward of the High Water mark. It is recommended that this item be constructed
landward and above the Mean High Water line. In addition to preserving the marine community along the
shoreline, this item would allow for the preservation of the foreshore that may be utilized by the General
Public. This item should be reviewed by the Town Trustees and the LWRP Coordinator.
7. Storm Water Leaching Pools should be installed a minimum of two (2') feet above the Water Table.
Some of the proposed leaching fields adjacent to Tidal Wetland areas may be set too deep. Leaching Pool
design depth and Test Hole information should be coordinated to maintain a minimum two foot separation.
8. The lighting plan on Sheet C-7 seems excessive when it appears that almost all of it will be located
immediately adjacent to Town Right-of-Ways and the rear yards of the existing residential properties. It
would appear that some of this site lighting and parking would be better suited if it were constructed within
the interior of the site to reduce the impact on the adjacent property owners.
9. The current proposed location for the Southerly entrance to the site is too close to the road end. This
Town road end is used for public access to the waterfront and should not be monopolized by the use of this
new facility. It is recommended that this entrance be moved in a northerly direction to align with the entrance
of the Condominium Complex located on the opposite side of the street.
10. Drainage calculations indicate that Tributary Area # 13 will have six (6) pools. The site plan only
indicates five. This item should be modified accordingly.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
James A. Richter, R.A.
CC: Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways
Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Trustees
Michael Verity, Principal Building Inspector
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
M VI Ii
,a:'"",a:
v:::". .
''',
~
l:!
~ ~
~.c.
~ .~
~
b,
f
i"'LD r~~
i,__ r I
'..~...~I' I C
i'>~ I C'-J
Jc:;=! t.O
1IIIldJl "'N'
I r- r-Io,~
, I~I_._:~~- g ,
I' ~=- .
i ~;
- ....~ ~'-
~:S
~
,
IlJ
I
."' ~~
t"i U~.
C)~ctv
"""....-~
.c.<::l::::~
~~
~
~
ERIC J. BRESSLER
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM
LYNNE M. GORDON
JANET GEASA
LA IV OFFICES
WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, r.c.
13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424
tvI.YITITUCK, LONG ISLAND
NEW YORK 11952
SF
~
fu
fl,~
WILLIAM WICKHAM (06-02)
275 BROAD IIOLl.OW ROAD
SUITE III
MELVIU.E, NEW YORK 11747
631-29~-8353
I'ELEFAX NO. 631-29~-~565
wwblaw{waoI.com
,/
631-249:94.~0
TELEFAX NO. 631-249-9484
October 25, 2006
Southold Town Planning Board
Post Office Box 1179; 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Gaia Holistic Cirele/Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM #: 1000-38-7-9
I
,
\
I
l' l-..
-',--'-'----'
~ ".m_
---~---- -
j
0('"[ r,
\~ "
L,~vO
Ladies/Gentlemen:
"-"""~"""",,,,,.',-"~<'''''''''''.'I''''-'''''
.-
On behalf of John Kent, of 2195 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY, the residence iltllnediately
adjacent to the proposed service entrance to the Oki-Do project on Shipyard Lane in East
Marion, we make the following comments for the scoping of the DEIS,
A. Medical conditions of neighbor. Mr. Kent suffers from inner ear injury and heart disease,
which makes him extremely sensitive to noise. The location of the service entrance, generator
facility, and the parking right next to his residence will create noise and disturbance far above
ambient levels, making it impossible for him to live there,
B. Draft Scope, page 3 - Site History - examine existence of nnderground facilities (petroleum,
other)
C. Draft Scope, pages 5 and 6, - Soil, Topography, Water Resources
include evaluation of soil percolation given prior use of site as oyster facility and
existence of shells in soil composition
impact of flooding on sanitary system functioning, generator functioning,
restaurant/hotel/cottage evacuation
include hydrological impact of irrigation well on salt water intrusion from Bay and
proposed marina, impact on surrounding wells, and consequences of draw in drought
conditions
evaluate increase in sea level due to anticipated global warming
D, Draft Scope, pages 6 and 7 - Ecology
wetlands/reopening of canal/marina ... since the opening to the Bay has been closed in for
some time, and structures are non-functioning, see photos annexed, the question of impact
on current environmental conditions in the interior pond (former marina) and surrounding
area should be carefully evaluated against the proposal to reopen, dredge, and utilize the site
as a marina. Extent and effectiveness of pump-out facilities must also he considered,
E. Draft Scope, page 7, Land Use and Zoning,
- evaluate density at site in light of:
-concern of over-intensification of use at the site, and permissibility of multiple uses and scope of
each use. The scale of the project may exceed the permitted use and density parameters.
-land area computations. Whether the use of land under water, and land landward of a non-
functioning bulkhead (which does not exist now but is proposed to be created by dredging and
filling) should be considered in detelmining density and area of land available for development.
See photos annexed.
F. Draft Scope, pages 8,9 Transportation,
a. require traffic analysis to include evaluation of peak tramc periods, specifically summer,
summer weekends, holiday weekends, fall weekends, and Cross Sound ferry traffic inbound and
outbound.
evaluate ability of project to expand seating capacity after approval by making "private"
seating public, and adding additional seating on deck areas.
evaluate credibility/feasibility of proposal that customer car usage, both to come to site and
while at site, will be limited. Evaluate impact on neighbor of traffic overflow. Evaluate
vehicular trips given proposal for first class facility. Include visits to marina in traffic analysis
Evaluate traffic and parking given background of applicant as an event planner.
G. Draft Scope, page 9 - Community Facilities and Services.
a. evaluation of impact on police, fire, ambulance during peak traffic periods (outlined above).
H. Additional considerations to be specified within the proposed scope:
Impact of parking layout:
I. Site is to be ringed with parking along residential neighborhood - consider alternatives to
parking along perimeter on two or three sides, with centralized parking away from
neighboring residences. Impact of noise: car alarms, doors, engines, voices, late night
noise, must be assessed, and adequacy of screening. Impact of cessation of plan for valet
parking. Distance from hotel/restaurant to parking.
2. Service entrance and utility structures should be located closer to interior, not to neighbors.
Flooding. Methods to control current t100ding problems and drainage during and after construction.
Ecology: existence of and impact on endangered or threatened species, including osprey.
Feasibility of project, and uses if project fails after approval (Note to page 12, current zoning is MIl).
Noise: In addition to noise from upland portion of site, include impact of noise, fumes, lights from
marina operation, and impact of fuel on site and in boats.
Lighting: In addition to lighting impact from walkways, parking areas, etc., consider lights from hotel
rooms, elevated deck, reflections from lighted swimming pooL lagoon, and boats at night.
Thank YOll for your consideration.
Very ttllly yours,
//, /"
II j/ /./, /./
.XJ4a/ ltt.d:l&tv'1,.
. Abigail A. Wickham
AAW/it
30/.y/1(itph
Page 1 of I
Okl.[D
LAC
From:
To:
Sellt:
Attach:
SUbject:
<kentj@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
<Ichiarmt@suffolk.libny.us>
Sunday, October 15, 2006 1139 AM
Picture 507.jpg
Picture 507
n II
II (QJ'Y\ o.X.
d- hOh tun C:+I DVl'\A.-'-F will
I Q/15/2006
Page 1 or I
ot,tb
LAC
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<kentj@suflolkJib.ny.us>
<Ichiarmt@suflolk.lib.ny.us>
Wednesday, October 11,20066:13 AM
Picture 498jpg
Picture 498
,
!\f em -r c:trcrv~~ -sl-vvcfww>o
10/15/2006
J--'agc I 01 1
()ki U-;,
LAC
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
<kentj@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
<Ichiarmt@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Wednesday, October 11,20066:11 AM
Picture 502.jpg
Picture 502
OSfi~
10/15/2006
t;PPEA}<,S BOARD MEMBERS
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman
Gerard P. Goehringer
James Dinizio, Jr.
Michael A. Simon
Leslie Kanes Weisman
http://southoldtown.northf ark .net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809' Fax (631) 765-9064
MEMO
Mailing Address:
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road. P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Office Location:
Town Annex /First Floor, North Fork Bank
54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue)
Southold, NY 11971
P:s
..sF'
1).)
fl.:f'
....",.,....
l'
I
~~t~n~gO~~:~~BA Chairwoman ~_~ roj-\a f\~ -f'~ft~=W~~\
~~~~~ ~~~~g~ (Gaia Holistic Circle) - \fI\ OC' "C '.:,]!
CTM 38-7-7.1 ~ "
In reply to the recent coordination under SEQRA for agency comme ts, tb-!()1I0wing
additional information is requested for evaluation and reviews when a ailable frorr1-lhe------------
applicant: I, ...,..,...,_~.""c".
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
~:i;;;~:'''-')"
. The current "apparent high water mark" is not shown on an up-to-date survey of
existing conditions; the current high water mark is much closer to the existing
building than shown. The wetlands boundary is not up-to-date.
. The current "apparent high water mark" is not shown on the proposed site plan,
instead an approximate high water mark and approximate low water mark are
shown, which do not reflect to current conditions.
. A landscape plan is requested to include the elevation of retaining walls and
other above-ground structures, and to show the dimensions and depth of the
proposed man-made ponds and slopes along the edge of the ponds, swimming
pool(s) and other types of ground level construction.
. Information is requested to determine the amount of fill proposed to be added to
the site.
. FEMA data and building elevations from the first floor area is requested for all
buildings, and basement elevation plan for all buildings.
. The bulkhead along the Bay was found to be non-functional, and the survey is
requested to show the measurement is from a "non-functional bulkhead. Also a
survey will require the setbacks to be shown from all building areas, including
but not limited to the roofed-over decks and open porches, must be measured
and shown on the site maps, to the existing non-functional bulkhead, the
property lines, and the wetlands at its closest points.
. A plan showing excavation within 100 feet of all water ways and basin is
requested to be shown on diagrams.
· Request for a drainage plan for the low-lying areas, especially to the east side of
the property near Cleaves Point Road where flooding occurs (possibly similar to
a holding pond or ponds for retaining water, reed beds or similar - with advice
from the Suffolk County Soil & Water conservation District and with our Town
Engineer).
PClge1of2
~ Page 2 - October 25, 2006
To: Planning Board, SEQRA Lead Agency
From: Ruth D. Oliva, ZBA Chairwoman
Re: Oki-Do (Gaia Hoiistic Circle CTM 38-7-7.1)
The Board of Appeals, as an involved agency in these reviews, recommends that the
above be submitted in order that an accurate review may be conducted of current site
conditions and proposed site changes, as well as discussions about building locations
with conformity to the applicable regulations.
~,'
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
\T.~
=p-
,":>1
J>)
M:(
~r
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson
South old Town Planning Board
James F. King, president~
Board of Trustees ljJ?
..", ,., '.,<c. """'~'j',
;..i..,.,....
FROM:
""w'
_.' ,'('''it
--' I.
.1
!i
0rT 'I
lJ, . I '1 r I
I v.. i.
. I
I I '
J L. U
The Board of Trustees is familiar with and has conducted a site inspe ior:t.alll1i,UJloperty, WhiChJ
was formerly Long Island Oyster Farms. This company harvested and processed oysters~ Th'6'-
t ".,
property has also housed a boat building company and a marine sUpply ana trap-building . ..,
. ~; ~ "-.n. H~
company In more recent years.
DATE:
October 24, 2006
r';~'l r.[~ f'
"I I I,
!j;,j,;'- -
RE:
Gaia Holistic Circle - Oki-Do.
Because of the magnitude of this project, the Board of Trustees will conduct a joint review with the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
Environmental impacts of this proposal are our primary concern and consist of, but are not limited
to the following:
verification of wetland line;
any armoring of the shoreline;
restoration of the shoreline;
adequate buffers between human activities and the marine district;
dredging needs for access to the existing basin and proper disposal of dredging
spoils;
lighting, particularly along the shoreline;
protection of wetland areas;
maintaining any and all stormwater run-off on site;
protection of wildlife habitat;
no parking seaward of the restaurant;
keep south parking lot entrance as far landward as possible.
The Trustees look forward to working with other Southold Town agencies as this project proceeds
through the appropriate permit processes.
~
~f-
J>~
A-f
October 22, 2006
Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson
Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the Board:
As full-time, year round residents at 490 Fire Rd #7, we wish to voice our concerns
regarding the impact of the proposed Oki-Do development upon our neighborhood
environment. As our home is situated within 30 feet of the adjoining property line, our
quality oflife will be greatly affected by the development as presented in the site plan.
At the present time, we have a water view of Gardiners Bay and Shelter Island's Hay
Beach beyond. Both the day and nighttime views are priceless. Visitors to our street often
speak in awe regarding the natural beauty ofthe immediate area and the fact that these
natural wonderlands are quickly disappearing in the name of development. In addition to
the stunning natural views, the sounds of nature that we enjoy throughout the seasons
contribute greatly to the quality of our rural lifestyle. Our neighboring area is home to
numerous songbirds. We are often treated to the hoot of a great homed owl, as well as the
orchestra created by nighttime peepers.
While the proposed project includes numerous plantings, the unspoiled view will be
threatened by the construction of multiple buildings and any lighting provided for the
proposed access road and parking lots to be situated directly behind our house.
In light of the close proximity of the access road and parking lot to our property, we are
also wondering about the noise that will be generated on the Oki-Do site. Will we be
subjected to an onslaught of sounds including construction noises, delivery vehicles, car
doors slamming, golf carts whizzing by, building and grounds maintenance noise, as well
as the sound of rushing water from the proposed waterfall ?
We fear that this huge commercial operation that is literally in our back yard will not be
compatible with our rural residential neighborhood. We ask the Southold Planning Board
to consider these issues and encourage you to take action to maintain the quality of the
rural lifestyle, peace, and privacy that is so precious to ourselves and to our neighbors.
Sincerely,
Martin Sarandria
Eva McGuire
490 Fire Road #7 P.D.Box 101
East Marion, NY 11939
~o lE.l~L~'}..
f.
U) OCT 2 S
L.
I
I
i
.~...J
._---,_._----~... -..
, C'"""
v,., '~,_,:"",;""""',".....",".,_,,."
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN H. SIDOR
GEORGE D. SOLOMON
JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY
Telephone: 631765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To:
Jim King, President
Town of South old Board of Trustees /
Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner
L WRP Coordinator
From:
Date: October 20, 2006
Re: Proposed Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle at East Marion
SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-Il
In the process of reviewing the above proposed action to the policies of the LWRP and the
notice of disapproval issued by the Building Department on February 26, 2006, it has become
apparent that the wetland jurisdictional boundaries have not been determined by the Town of
Southold Board of Trustees. I am requesting that the Town of South old Board of Trustees
determine the jurisdictional wetland boundaries for the south portion of the property
including the wetlands within the marina so that the proposed setbacks to the proposed
structures can be evaluated.
Cc: Ruth Oliva, Chair, Zoning Board of Appeals
Patricia Finnegan, Town Attorney
Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney
Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector
Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewerl
Box 747
East Marion, NY 11939
October 20, 2006
a;/.!'i1l/';lr~;r... :!>.~
\JD
M1
D)
"
~\-
Sf
.--. ....~-_...~
j';" .,.~';AA+)"l*,1f
Southold town Planning Board
Southold, NY 11971
'.';-1::;:\
~ '\ '\'
----,' \
, I'
, !
\n\J~ r"
\""1
If",
, ,I'i~' arT f'\ r, ')r,il6 I
Dear Chairman Woodhouse and Members: \ \J t ,~ 1 I. _ ,.n \
After attending the Scoping session on Mon, Oct. 16 regarding the Oki-Do s~at kend: .... .... /.'1' ,.,.-1
of Shipyard Lane, I have several other items that I would like addressed,\ ~_:~:;', ~i"""',
What are the "various other outdoor amenities" in the proposal? It is im~ft(;"~;-'''-' ,M'<<"-
if they are band shells, tennis courts, arenas, or playgrounds,
What are the retail shops? Will they sell souvenirs or will they be open to the public for
clothing, sports equipment, and food? Will they generate traffIC as people come to
purchase goods?
There is a concern that the guests will migrate towards the private beach maintained by
Summit Association, In addition there is also a concern that the marina will genemte an
unsafe amount of boat traffIC, How will this be addressed?
Will there be a "lights out" time? What steps will be taken regarding garbage and the
dumpsters that will be on the property? Will they be on the interior so that the
possible rodent problem will be the spa's problem and not the neighbors?
What is tbe "private dining room"? Will there be weddings and catering?
Will Southold Town enact a noise ordinance, and insist that the noise be CONTAINED
within the boundary of the Oki"Do property? I believe this is something that should be
done,
The Scope of this project is much too large and requires many variances.
Has the town considered using the 2% fund and buying this last piece of waterfmntin
East Marion? There hwm't been much money spent in our hamlet, I don't believe,
This could end up being an eminent domain issue, The public good wit! not be served by
a facilitythat will DOUBLE the population of East Marion,
Thank you. 1'0. r your cons~d e ti n,
~- ,~n ./ r?l
. -Vx.~I- -U(.' -~
yn 'a mitli, residen ~ -XC>~
SummIt Estates \j
1 U/2t)/'..:UOC _'..
_ ;: ~ ill ,.) '..:.~ '~:
'oACHEI'! H'" I"CJRTH
~'AGE 0~
yB
:,r
0)
A-f
10/18/06
l;-,,,.-':,,:,, '~'i' ',1," " ,:1"\\"\ i,'I_
Jeralyn Woodhouse, Chairperson rl, \!\;"-l;~ii, , ,11
South old Town Planning Board i' i L_'~_I ' \:,
Southold To\';n Hall
Southold, NY 11971 L. _, H '
~hl ' 1 ;
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the '0 ,', [""" '. ,1 _ . ,.;;
Thank you again for the chance to speak abouft;;ft;i~;;';;~~;';i ,.. ",,,,,,,-.,,,,,,~~a
issues that must be addressed in connection with the proposed Oki-Do
Development. I would like to reiterate the importance of a comprehensive
study of the following:
1. The synergistic effect of this huge development in combination with
all the development that is already approved for East Marion. This .-
point was brought up at the scoping meeting and cannot be ignored.
How much development is already on the, books for East Marion? r
think the, biggest problem ofth~Draft. SC9ping Document is that it
looks only at the inunediate effects of the Ok i-Do project and not at
the overall impact on a residential community that is already being
rapidly built out.
2. The impact on the already rising water table in the area ofpumping in
enough water to service 220 hotel guests, 100 or so employees, and a
restaurant serving up to 185 on a daily basis. In connection with this
aspect of the study, the significance of the oyster shell base should not
be overlooked, As mentioned in the local waterfront plan, this area is
critical and perhaps should not be developed at all.
3, The impact on the local road system - not only on the two small
residential roads which would bear the brunt of the traffic and
emergency vehicles, but indeed on the tenible traffic situation already
existing in, East Marion where residents often wait several minutes
before being able to pull out onto the North Road,
lU ~J!2G:15 8~:~i
f)'_:ld ill .1-;.::.1:::
r~;i~'iCHEr''': f-b 1-.![lkTH
F' (-'\GE 82
4. The impact on the school of any possible uses of a development so out
of scale with the existing small town community of East Marion.
5. The impact oftl1e commuting or local residences needed to supply the
requisite number of employees.
6. The light pollution in a community where one can still see the stars at
night.
7. The noise emanating from a restaurant and center of the size
proposed.
8. The noise emanating from the generators, trash compactors, etc./.hat
are proposed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to the scope of the EIS.
T~ you, .
'-4./h)1 1'1 t{,fI<.P,-V'
Candi Harper
President, Marion Manor
Homeowners Association
290 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
?-'
y~
~
Mf
K,c...
'Sr
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
41 STATE STREET
ALBANY, NY 12231-0001
GEORGE E. PATAK I
GOVERNOR
CHRISTOPHER L. JACOBS
SECRETARY OF STATE
October] 7,2006
Mr. Bruno Semon
Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Town of South old Planning Board
PO Box ] I 79 ~ \1':':'\
I'n'
54375 State Route 25 !',j I
"
Southold,NewYork ]197] I:
>,. C ....,;,-';.~''';,::, ,;-
P [I' ii'
\ L-~ r'
1.'-. cT",.: 1..rF....~'~'\.....
. 1,1,_, ': \\
'il \1
! 'I
, 'I
,j-~
J.t'
~-"-_.
The New York State Department of State'~(NYSPOS) piyjs!nQ.bU::;pastal Resources has received a
draft scope and Notice of Public Sco'jlnigMeetingfor 'tlle draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)
for the proposed Gaia Holistic Circle! Oki-Do, Ltd. devclopment on Shipyard Lane in East Marion and
has prepared the following writtcn comments.
Dear Mr. Semon,
A coastal consistency determination will be nccessary from NYSDOS as part of the federal review and
decision-making process for any required Anny Corps of Engineers pennits, such as for bulkhead
replacement or dredging, This coastal consistency determination should be included in any listing of
necessary federal pennits or authorizations, The Town should also, as part of the local decision-making
process, identify which Town department or agency will be responsible for preparing and making final
determinations of consistency with the Town's Local Waterfront Rcvitalization Program (L WRP) for
the proposed project.
The L WRP is a comprehensive land and water use plan that contains enforceable policies in addition to
locally established guidancc and direction for filture development. Due to the comprehensive nature of
the LWRP, the DEIS should discuss the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant policies
and purposes ofthe Town's LWRP as a stand-alone section. For example, the LWRP spccifIcally
references the proposed developmcnt site (formerly the Long fsland Oyster Farm property) in Section II
(Inventory and Analysis) during the discussion of Rcach 5 in the context of a possible location to
promote public access. The DEIS should discuss this and all relevant components ofthe L WRP. In
addition, as State agcncies are involvcd in decision-making related to the proposed devclopment, the
DEIS is rcquired to include an analysis ofthe potential affects on and consistency with thc LWRP
associated with the proposcd project.
The DEIS and all future plan documcnts should include the proposed dredging dcpths and identify
proposed upland placement footprints for the subsequcnt dredged material. The plans should also
provide cstimates for the volume of" sediment that may be necessary as backfill behind the proposed
\",..V"'\"i,DO~; ~;r':\Tf',NY,lIS
E .~.,!AIL: ;~,HCU(l'iiLlC!:;,S lAI CoNY, us
restored bulkheading. The DEIS should also discuss the existing maintenance dredging permits for the
site and any modifications that may be necessary.
The proposed plans indicate that the applicant intends to remove approximately 100 feet of existing
bulkhead which currently extends into Gardiner's Bay. This modification will leave approximately 110
feet of bulkhead remaining. The DEIS should consider the removal ofthe entire length of bulkhead
extending seaward of the upland property.
The DEIS should include a section on Water Uses describing the maximum sizes of vessels that could
be moored at the proposed marina. This description should take into consideration tuming radius,
depths and identified vessel speed limits in and around the proposed marina. This section ofthe DEIS
should also address the potential for increased number of private vessels docking at the proposed private
marina, to necessitate chaJU1el enhancements (such as increases routine dredging, installation of
navigational beacons), and include infonnation whether effects would extend to the existing
navigational and other uses of nearby waterways.
The DEIS should include discussion of the potential impact of the proposed artificial lake on vector
control on-site, and in ilmnediate and nearby neighborhoods.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's comments on the proposed scope. Please
contact Shawn Kiernan at (518) 473-3656 or skiernan(al,dos.state.nv.us with any further questions.
..
h~ D ~
"J'! ~
..._..:\ ',r: /t..-< ~
(J~flire~' . e~
'SUpervisor of Consistency Review
Resources Management Bureau
;i='%~
Shawn Kiernan
Coastal Resources Specialist
Local and Regional Programs Bureau
ROBERTF.MUlR
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 11939
Ms Jeri Woodhouse, Cbainmm
Plannine Board
Southold, NY 1197]
OdDbeF 14, 2006
Dear Chairman Woodhouse:
Re: Gaia CiTc]e-Oki-Do
As a longtime resident and adjacent property owner I bring to yom- attention thn:e
continuing concerns with the curIeBt proposal.
]. Drainage and the overflow onto the bonJering Gillette Drive properties
2 The necessity to have the Emegem:y Exit onto Cleaves Point Rood be a
truly Gated and RestrictedentraJK:e.
3 There be a provision for CODtinued Tax Basis for the ptUflaly no matter
whal the use ~ignation i.e. non-pmfit or health related use. 'This is
particularly important tor the benefit of the SdIool Disftict and other fire
prolection and support services to our commtmity.
I have written to The Planning Board and 'The Zoning Board of Appeals, copies altached...
These commenls are still valid pIus these additional thoughts.
Also enclosed are pit....ures taken after the October 2005 storm which left our area, and
the Oysler Plant properly under 2 teet of water tor the soutbem 1/3 of the properly.
The water table is only 4 ft below ground in much of the area and pI.....m.g to handle the
amount of rain in one of the large storms ClIDI10t be wot.... witlt dry wells that are only
4 feet deep. There is already a dry well al the end of the paved portion of Cleaves point
Road and that is nol adequate al the present.
fflO\."'......"..;.""""'.;".._. .-''''-'~''<'''''..'..',- ,.:..-,.....-":-.<.?,..;.:,-;:,:.~.:.,.,..~
\. \D. '~..-~~;-..Y-l~~...rr"~,
,!"..', :! 1
III \' j i i
'Ii i i Ii (" . il".~'
.J ".
I . .
i l_uu .J
I...... ,
R~ suBmitted,
3=::f~
Robert~ Muir
2850 Gillette Drive
Easl M~NY Il939
l<c.
.,-,...""",
"~"> ........,..,-..."="'-""'.,~.,.,_......_-
,,-----
LSF~)
PS
~T
BS
;;
I
j.
I
ROBERT F. MUIR
2850 GILLETIE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 11939
CoP~
James F. King. PresHk:ut
Town Trustees
Southold, N.Y. II97l
October 14, 2006
President King:
c
Re. Gaia Circle Oki-Do proposal
,
,
Nancy and I have been pl~.ty owners on Gillette Drive since Il')(jl and we built a
summer home in IWI and..,hmlfull time in 1988 Oki-Dowillreoorbackfeoce
neighbors and the emergency exit Born the pI""",ty at CleaVes Point Road. is our
pfOpedy line on the south.
We have several serious oom:ems with the~.
We want the "Emergency Exit" to be Gated and locked with access only
for emergency activities.. We have 60 residences in Marion Manor, now
nearly :fully developed with many young fumilies and more than 16 young
childn:n playing in the streets, waiting for the school bus or on their way
to the beach. Additional traffic Born the Spa or during construction would
create a very dangerous situation
We have bad serious drainage problems when there are heavy rains or
Northeaster storm<;.. Close attention to the control of the flow of water at
the Spa is required in onIei- that the flooding situation not be increased.
The promoters claim that this entity will. be "Profit-Making" and will be
a taxpayer for an local servicesim:luding Schools, Fire Depwhumds etc..
This must be gu&.~l:d even if it later.beromes a non-profit org.
We have followaI the progn:ss dmely and have written several letters to the Planning
Board and the Zoning :&ard of Appeals. copies are atlac:hed.. Also there are 4 photos
taken after the October 2005 rainstorm to show the extent of the flooding on the Oki-Do
ploperly as wen$ne showing the road end at Cleaves Point Rood and the yanls of the two
adjacent house and yards.
We appreciate any input and oversight you may be able to furnish as this Project
progresses.
In addition to being an immediate bordering neigbbor and taxpayer, 1 am also a Diredor
of The Manon Manor FlVfX-1ty Owners Association and the District Tmasurer of the
Oysterponds School District.
Res"""lfuIly submitted,
/(;;~cj-97!?I~
J
,.
March 2, 2006
@-{l,;:,;.,-'
Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairman
Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
c '
Dear Ms, Woodhouse
t \\,
~; i,h..,...
Re: Gaia Circle aka Oki-Do Property in East Marion (Formerly d~t::::l::::',::-
As residents of over forty years combined, Robert F. Muir and Joseph Licciardi are writing this
important letter to insure the Board has first-hand information from actual residents who border the
property, Our combined properties, Lots 5, 6 and 7 of Marion Manor, total approximately 620 feet of
exposure to the property.
We have experienced flooding in this area numerous times from heavy rains. The water gathers along
the eastern portion of the property and slowly seeps into the ground, This area is a natural low-lying
drainage area for the surroundings. The oyster shells in the area should be removed to increase the
natural drainage the wetland provides. Also, not mentioned or noted anywhere, is the existing earthen
berm protecting the homes on Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road from flooding.
The original drawing submitted by Oki-Do, stamped "received 7/29/2003" had a drainage pond located
in the southeast corner wetland area of the property. It has been removed in the new drawings. In its
place the new drawings reflect 3 buildings in the general area. The drainage pond from the original
plans should be restored and possibly enlarged and situated to run North-South as this is the primary
wetland drainage area. Relocating the three buildings in the new drawings away from this wetland and
positioned more as the first drawings reflected would benefit us all.
Additionally, the original proposed road, which entered the property from Cleaves Point Road, only
turned to the right (North) in the original drawings. The updated drawings now have the road running
North and South from Cleaves Point Road. The southern part of the road is our primary concern, as it
will pave over the lowest lying portion of the property, reducing the natural drainage, which is so critical
to our properties and environment.
The last storm, October 2005, caused the Oyster Farms lot to flood, the overflow then spilled out
flooding homes and properties along Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road. We strongly believe that
placing solid structures, foundations, paths and a roadway will cause major water problems for the
neighbors as well as the owners of the Oyster Farms property. According to the ground elevation
plan, the southeast corner and up along the eastern property line is at some places as low as two feet
above sea level.
We hope our comments to the Board will allow an opportunity to review the impact to the environment
and assist in improving the situation for all involved.
Sincerely,
IclW',ft~
Robert F. Muir
.L
'",A
"i
J
Joseph Licciardi
2850 Gillette Drive
East Marion, NY 11939
50 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
c,~
,j,
fB
p.(
(?5
ROBERT F. MUIR
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARJON, NY 11939
Phone 631 477-0075
Email muirbob@optonline.net
Ruth D. Oliva - Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY I 1971
July 05, 2004
'Subject: GAlA CIRCLE formerly OKI-DO
. .
Dear Ms. Oliva:,
This is a follow-up to my letter of September 05, 2003 now that a revised plan has been submitted under toe name
of GAlA CIRCLE. In addition to my previously stated Concerns I add the fOllOwing:
1. The plan calls for 107 living units in the Spa and the cottages plus 3 houses for managers. Allowing 2 people
per unit this would allow for 220 residents in addition to the 200 seat restaurant. This would seem to be a higher
density than Our Community could support giving the potential additional demand On our police, fire, and other
emergency services.
2. The addition of a "Gas Dock" to the marina area would seem to be an unnecessary potential pollution and fire
danger to a concentrated residential area.
3. The pools or ponds would be decorative but would there be enough water circulation to avoid mosquito breeding
areas.
4. There must be a permanent commitment to keeping the property as a tax producer and not allow it to ever be a
"non-profit" health related facility as San Simeon did to avoid property taxes.
Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Muir
ROBERT F. MUIR
Home Phone 63] 477-2225
Emai! rnuirbob@Optonlinl:.net
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 11939
Lynda A. Tortora, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 1197 ]
September 05, 2003
c
Dear Ms Tortora:,
_~,,,,,...,)':&....tc?c..;~
Reference is made to the OKl-DO application for the property located on Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY. My
wife, Nancy Muir and I are he owners ofJots #6 and #7 on the original Marion Manor subdivision or No. 29. I on
the Tax Map backing up to the OKl-DO property in question.
"......,
We are concerned with the following:
I. The Emergency Road with the outlet on Cleaves Point Road and Gillette Drive. Our reservation is the
nature of the Emergency Exit. Our streets and narrow and would not be able to SUpport the additional traffic if this
Was allowed to become a common entrance or exit, Our area is rapidly becoming fully developed with many
families with small children. We would strenuously object if the streets became a major exit or entrance.
We understand tbe need for an Emergency Exit Road but urge that it be a limited or gated exit, since the
Manager's house will be located very near the terminus of the road. We have seen too many cars come down
Gillette and turn right onto Cleaves Point Road expecting it to be a connecting road. It would be doubly dangerous
iflarge construction vehicles were allowed during the bUilding period.
Tbe object of becoming a Holistic Center with only walkways, not roads for access to the buildings is to
provide a quiet, relaxing atroosphere for their guests. Continuous traffic around the perimeter road would be a
distraction if there was a regular exit and entrance off Cleaves Point Road.
2. Drainage is also a potential problem. You will note that there is a "berm" consisting mostly of oyster
shells and dirt along the Southeastern border of the property to keep water from draining onto Cleaves Point Road
and the adjacent properties. Also the Town Highway DepaTtroent constructed a "dry well" at the end of the paved
Portion of the road to help control the drainage and the flow of water during heavy rainstorms.
We purchased Lot # 6 on the "Map of Marion Manor" August 13, 1963 and built our house in 1971. We enlarged
the original house in 1988 when it became our full time residence. We have enjoyed the peaceful existence to this
point and would object to any widening of the streets to accommodate more traffic that Would be caused by tbe
connecting Cleaves Point Road with OKl-DO as a regular entrance or exit. An emergency exit would be an
acceptable solution. Generally we find the proposal to be very well planned.
Sincerely,
ROBERT f. MUlR
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 11939
{ ,\" '""'\
James F. King, President
Town Trustees
Southold, N.Y. 1197!
OrtoberI4,2006
President King:
r
,
Re. Gaia Circle Oki-Do proposal
Nancy and I have been property owners on Gillette Drive since 11961 and we built a
summer home in 1971 and ,clll.,u full time in 1 YIIS Old-Do will be om back fence
neighbors and the emergency exit fium the property at Cleaves Point Road is our
pIOperty line on the south.
We bave severnl serious concerns with the project.
We want the "Emergency Exit" to be Gated and locked with access only
for emergency activities. We have 60 residences in Marion Manor, now
nearly fully develo.ped with many YOoog famrlies and more than 16 YOoog
children playing in the slree1$, waiting for the school bus or on theif.way
to. the beach. Additional tIaffic fium the Spa or during constructioD would
create a very dangerous situation
We bave had serious drninage problems when there are heavy rnins or
Northeaster storms. Close attention to the control of the flow o.f water at
the Spa is required in order that the flooding sitnation not be increased.
The promoters daim that this entity will be "Profit-Making" and will be
a taxpayer for all local services including &hools" Fire Departments etc..
This must be guarnnteed even if it later _becomes a non-profit org.
We have fo.llowed the progress closely and have wnttlm severnJ letteIs to the Planning
Boonl and the Zoning Boanl of Appeals" copies are attached. Also there are 4 pho.tos
taken after the Dao.ber 2005 mlL'ltorm to show the extent of the flooding on the Old-Do
property lL'l we~ showing the road end at Cleaves Point Road and the yanls o.f the two
adjaemt oouse and yanls.
We appn:ciate any input and o.versight yo.U may be able to furnish lL'l this Project
progresses.
In addition to. being an immediate bordering neighbor and taxpayer, I am also a Dim:tor
of The Marion Maoor Property Owners Association and the District TrelL'lurer o.f the
Oysterponds School District.
RespedfuJly submitted,
/(;ki-- Y7~1~
~-:~\-
;~t<'-.'I:.;"
f:JB
p.(
(75
,
March 2, 2006
Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairman
Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
c
Dear Ms. Woodllouse
t \"
~x t!f,t;~.
Re: Gaia Circle aka Oki-Do Property in East Marion (Formerly d'1~l'.::.J:::
As residents of over forty years combined, Robert F. Muir and Joseph Licciardi are writing this
important letter to insure the Board has first-hand information from actual residents who border the
property. Our combined properties, Lots 5, 6 and 7 of Marion Manor, total approximately 620 feet of
exposure to the property.
We have experienced flooding in this area numerous times from heavy rains. The water gathers atong
the eastern portion of the property and slowly seeps into the ground. This area is a natural low-lying
drainage area for the surroundings. The oyster shells in the area should be removed to increase the
natural drainage the wetland provides. Also, not mentioned or noted anywhere, is the existing earthen
berm protecting the homes on Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road from flooding.
lye'
The original drawing submitted by Oki-Do, stamped "received 7/29/2003" had a drainage pond located
in the southeast corner wetland area of the property. It has been removed in the new drawings In its
place the new drawings reflect 3 buildings in the general area. The drainage pond from the original
plans should be restored and possibly enlarged and situated to run North"South as this is the primary
wetland drainage area Relocating the three buildings in the new drawings away from this wetland and
positioned more as the first drawings reflected would benefit us all.
Additionally, the original proposed road, which entered the property from Cleaves Point Road, only
turned to the right (North) in the original drawings The updated drawings now have the road running
North and South from Cleaves Point Road. The southern part of the road is our primary concern, as it
will pave over the lowest lying portion of the property, reducing the natural drainage, which is so critical
to dur properties and environment.
The last storm, October 2005, caused the Oyster Farms lot to flood, the overflow then spilled out
flooding homes and properties along Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road. We strongly believe that
placing solid structures, foundations, paths and a roadway will cause major water problems for the
neighbors as well as the owners of the Oyster Farms property. According to the ground elevation
plan, the southeast corner and up along the eastern property line is at some places as low as two feet
above sea level.
We hope our comments to the Board will allow an opportunity to review the impact to the environment
and assist in improving the situation for all involved.
Sincerely,
/clw'T7t~~~
Robert F. Muir
. Ii
NYl
,\
\i
J
Joseph Licciardi
2850 Gillette Drive
East Marion, NY 11939
50 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
Marion Manor Association
2530 Gillette Drive
East Marion, New York 11939
Southold Town Zoning Board
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Oki-Do Gaia Holistic Circle
March 1 st, 2006
Dear Ms. Oliva,
The Marion Manor Association represents sixty-five homes in Gillette/ East Gillette Drive
area of East Marion. We have concerns regarding the Gaia project which we would like the town
boards to consider. The Gaia project seems admirable, striving for Leeds certification and would no
doubt improve the aesthetics of the property. We are pleased with the removal of the gas pump at the
marina which was in the original proposal. All this aside, consider that any variance and/or zoning
changes granted for the development will remain if the owner decides against pursuing Leeds
certification and for the future owner who will not be operating a holistic spa.
The following page lists are greatest concerns regarding the proposed Gaia project.
Respectfully Submitted
Marion Manor Association
Gene Walker VP
Nancy Grathwohl Sec.
Bob Muir
1. Gillette Drive/Cleaves Point Access Road. The entrance must be marked and
designated "Emergency Vehicles Only" which should be strictly enforced. There
are many young children (15) rcsiding on Gillette Drivc whose numbers
quadruple in the summer with visiting grandchildren and summer residents. This
cxit necds to gated and locked to ensure it is not used by Gaia employees,
construction and commercial dehveries. This restriction should apply during the
construction as well as after completion.
2. Drainage. We have serious problems with nooding on Gillette Drive and do not
want the problem cnhanced by inadequate draining at the Gaia site. The drainage
plans and building plans do not seem sufficient to correct the nooding of this area.
The elevation plan renccts very low lying areas along the east end of the property.
The plans also have test bore results which show a large amount of clay in the
area further reducing water saturation into the earth.
3. Owner/Manager's HOllse. We believe there is no logical reason why this home
and at least three to five other structures need to be constructed along the eastern
property line. The homes in the current plan are both too close to the water and
located at the lowest points in the property, 1110stlikely wetland area. According
to the ground elevation plan, the south-east corner and up along the casteI'll.
property line is at some places as low as two feet above sea level.
4. East Side Parking and Road. The roads and parking areas along the east side of
the property not only fl11iher reduce drainage in the area, they also contradict the
"quiet and peaceful" statement of the development. The proposed road runs
parallel to the backyards of properties on Gillette Drive and Cleaves Point Road.
We ask that the originally submitted plans be reviewed as they respected the land
with both better drainage (ponds) with less roads and buildings along the eastern
property line.
RODfRT F. MUIR
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 1 J 939
Phone 631 477-007:1
Emai11lluiroob(cyoptOllliIlcrrer
Ruth D, Oliva - Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
South old, NY I 1971
July OS, 2004
(.,
c'
'Subject: GAlA CIRCLE fonnerly OKI-DO
Dear Ms, Oliva:,
This is a follow-up to my letter of September OS, 2003 now that a revised plan has been submitted under toe name
of GALA CIRCLE, In addition to my previously stated concerns I add the following:
L The plan calls for 107 living units in the Spa and the cottages plus 3 houses for managers, Allowing 2 people
per unit this would allow for 220 residents in addition to the 200 seat restaurant This would see!!l to be a higher
density than our Community could support giving the potential additional demand on our police, fire, and other
emergency services.
2, The addition of a "Gas Dock" to the marina area would seem to be an unnecessary potentialpollution and fire
danger to a concentrated residential area.
3, The pools or ponds would be decorative but would there be enough water circulation to avoid mosquito breeding
areas.
4, There must be a permanent commitment to keeping the property as a tax producer and not allow it to ever be a
"non-profit" health related t1cility as San Simeon did to avoid property taxes,
Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated,
Sincerely,
Robert F. Muir
ROBERT F. MUIR
Home Phone 631 '177-222)
Emili) mllirbob(~!)orrunljnene!
2850 GILLETTE OR1VE
EAST MARION, NY J 1939
Lynda A. Tortora, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Ha11
53095 Main Road
South old, NY ll971
September 05,2003
Dear Ms Tortora:,
,",,1'1":JI:-'f<~"P'''''J(''''''
Reference is made to the OIG-DO application for the property loc;ted' on Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY. My
wife, Nancy Muir and r are he owners of lots #6 and #7 on the original Marion Manor subdivision or No. 29.1 on
the Tax Map backing up to the OIG-DO property in question.
~,"'X~.,..."i~~:!l!~;';';;';:"'(_'" ,"
We are concerned with the fo11owing:
I. The Emergency Road with the outlet on Cleaves Point Road and Gillette Drive. Our reservation is the
nature of the Emergency Exit. Our streets and narrow and would not be able to support the additional traffic iftbis
was a110wed to become a common entrance or exit, Our area is rapidly becoming fully developed with many
13milies with small children. We would strenuously object if the streets became a major exit or entrance.
~,
We understand the need for an Emergency Exit Road but urge that it be a limited or gated exit, since the
Manager's house wi11 be located very near the terminus of the road. We have seen too many cars come down
Gillette and turn right onto Cleaves Point Road expecting it to be a connecting road. It would be doubly dangerous
if/arge construction vehicles Were allowed during the building period.
TIle object of becoming a Holistic Center with only walkways, not roads for access to the buildings is to
provide a quiet, relaxing atmosphere for their guests. Continuous traffic around the perimeter road would be a
distraction if there was a regular exit and entrance off Cleaves Point Road.
2. Drainage is also a potential problem. You will note that there is a ''berm'' consisting mostly of Oyster
shells and dirt along the southeastern border ofthe property to keep water from draining onto Cleaves Point Road
and the adjacent properties. Also the Town Highway Department constructed a "dry well" at the end of the paved
POI1ion of the road to help control the drainage and the flow of water during heavy rainstonns.
We purchased Lot # 6 on the "Map of Marion Manor" August 13, 1963 and built our house in 1971. We enlarged
the original house in 1988 when it became our filii time residence. We have enjoyed the peaceful existence to this
point and would object to any widening of the streets to accommodate more traffic that would be caused by tbe
connecting Cleaves Point Road with OIG-DO as a regular entrance or exit. An emergency exit would be an
acceptable solution. Generally we find the proposal to be very well planned.
Sincerely,
"
L..-.--l
OYSTERPONDS U.F.S.D. IN ORIENT
23405 MAIN ROAD
ORIENT NY 11957
:;;1"",,",,--.,
W
9~
4Y
Telephone 631 323.2410
Fax 631323.3713
Website: www.oysterponds.k12.ny.lIs
Dr. Stllart Rachlin
SlIperintendent
October 16, 2006
Ms. leri Woodhouse, Chairperson
Southold Town Planning Board
POBox 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Woodhouse,
I am writing to you today, on behalf of the Board of Education of the Oysterponds Union Free School District
in Orient, regarding the application of the GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do, Ltd., for the construction of a holistic
health center to be located at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion.
Of the utmost concern to the existence of this school district is the potential fiscal impact that such a project
would have. It has been brought to our attention that the applicant has, in the past, been granted not-for-profit
status; as such, the removal of this property from the tax rolls would engender a decrease in total assessments
and revenue - the primary source of income required by a school district to operate. Under no circumstances
can we maintain a school with increased costs and, at the same time, suffer an erosion of our revenue base. As
has been done in the past with projects with the potential for being granted tax-exempt status, we would expect
that PILOT payments would be paid to the district equal to the lost tax revenue, should that status be granted.
Also of concern to us is the impacl of a potentially increased student enrollment due to employee housing (on-
sile or off-site) and/or winter rentals oflhe rooms at the facility. As a district of approximately 100 students in
grades K-6, space constraints are of great concern; in addition, should any of these sludents require special
services, we could be forced to employ additional teachers or service providers which would greatly increase
our budget - well after the begil1l1ing of the school year. This increase in student population would, of course,
also impact upon our transportation.
The Oki-Do project puts the future of the Oysterponds School District at a turning point; it is now up to your
Board to determine in which direction we will proceed. Kindly inform me as to the progress and slatus of this
project, and rest assured that I, in turn, will relate all information to my Board of Education.
s~.ncerel ,
J;.
,. Stua Rachli~, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
}.u,',~~:~o.;.,
.'if
Irn~
Cc: Mr. B. Semon
Ms, R. Oliva
Mr.!. King
Supervisor S. Russell
m~J-~'
ql",'
'I,
f'i
p,J
i
,
I
I
k_..._.~,..m.
.J
r.
\....
i
1._,.
~.
-, ;;...,,"'......,
,H _.-",,~
Summit F~tate~ A~~ociatif:n
Box 779
East ~.1arion, 1'-rY 11939
G. Woodhouse, Chainnan
Southold T o\\.n Planning Board
MaiJl Road
Soulhold, 1~r'({ 11971
~,f;;: UJ'-'u-.-H,'u-'li;;:'" .;;,n.-1 PI.;;,n,-,ii-j" R'-";;i-.-I,~,,"p-i"ll-'P-i-\:"
-'-....oJ. .. v '"'-J. ....oJ..... ................. ...........u...... b -.L.Iv........... . ............v.......oJ.
buiH on lie walerfronl ai lhe end of Shipyard Lane in Easl Marion, NY.
'T'l...;~ l...tt~- \\,"'1 ...~_.... 4..... ....._,.._...:1 .....- .......--...._... _.......~_.J;_.... .1.,.. ()l.~ T"'l.... C"p'" -........-t,. -I"'."" L~
............,~, '.. ..r-'''r'..'..............u...........---...........o........n.......... ..,_Ii...".:.-o ..........,. a,),..,.,r
~ ...~ ........ '" ...................... v...... ......... ..............~..'"-' .....1:;)..............0 ~....... ......-... ~v.... -.., t'v~... ........ ~"""'"
Our conct:IIlli an: widt:-ranging. Fml is lit: idt:a lial uur smaii St:ciiun uf lht: walt:ruunl
can support such n project As you kno'-v Summil Fstntes Associntion o\vns ~nd
maintains a smali private beach and dock on the sarne -waterfront, oniy a fe-w hundred
vard~ from the nronosed ne\v nrolect. \x!ith the nronosed increased \vater traffic 3J1d
.; .. .. .. ... .. ..
recreational use 'Vle are convinced that our beach and waterfront will be rendered
u..'1usab!e. -'1,
Another major concern js nOIse, 'I'here is no noise ordinance. in South old 'I'own, 'I'he
b f' lh" " " ,,' ,. 1 1 'f'
num er o. proposet.. voaU) una curs, nOt to mention constrUCtion vemc.e:; a.one ;Vlol
generate a level of noise that is going to be unbearable. Add to that a public. restaurant,
fP-i",il .:,t-'Oi''':' ",;:..-..'_.;,..:.:,.-.;-" ...:'....:'" .-.ffi.-.,.;. .:,;..;0.-.,;. ':' p--f;"';;:";' ;'':''::'''''''u;-':'P: ,;ol,;io:.... .:. '-"-"',;.;..;,uJ .1,:.,-.1 .:;,
.........aJ..l- .......... PoJ, ..........................v...J ...oJ....oJ, V.l-.............. oJp.............,..... .. TU-~.... ......oJ.... ..u....... ..........~.., .........v ............ ~............"-,....
i 987square foot private residence, and a 7200 square foot maintenance huilding, and
,Ii=Th:;;,r-,;;:. p.-jjtprl~iiinl,p.T'lt o.a>:,+.p.!:i .:u-,p..-l...!-i-,.n .-.T t;.~;.... ,....-l thp. !.=;.r,p.l .",-iH !-,.=. .,'nr..=,,;;:.p.r.u t.... th,.,.t
t'.............t'........ ................................, ...... ;............ "..................0....... ..'....., ............. ............ ............... .................. ......................... .." .....~....~
which wiH nt:gativdy impact upon our property vaiut:s, which will kad to kss tax
...""'.........~1.... '!.~!h......... ~......... ........... J:"....._...........I 4-0 ~,' ......,.... ....."... .~~...-... ...I~~.... ...... m'l-h I.....~~,....... ....-r............., ~T....I'I--
l'.,.,VI..<Hl.'-' ';:''T_i'-'ll V'f'-' a.P.,., IVl\,.....,.,...l t. gl.'''''V'-' V~l t.a~"I..V;' '.-It:..... ~u {_.!.t,,_.{ lUV'f'-'l plV'p'-'l~)' V~. ,-.;"
A third nnd mc;~t PTit':V(';U~ cnnr:ern 1~ trflffi~ The: tmffi('; ~fmp.rflterl hv thi~ nrnlp.r:t i~ '~lI~h
- - n___ -- Q---. ---_ -___ ____ __n____. ---- -------- Q--------__ _" _ _ r--J----- ______
that Shipya.rd Lane CANNOT bear it. Shipyard Lane is a smaH, two lane counl.Jy road.
It cannnt he \.\.rlrlQnQrI v"thout tat--~n"'" the nrn~rty nf otherco (Qnrl ';ve n,^u1A tloht thjco
'" . n,. .......................... . '.. ..... b .. 1".1'...... J " ... .. ,L.&-....... ...u...... 0.........
forever) and fr-lis road cannot bear up uilder a projected several hundred cars a day,
ThPl tra...ffic urouId npoQtt,;rp.!u f.tn"act ""ur nrnnp.-rhr lraluec !:IS llrp.l1 as mtl!rp it lI11Sate tn p.vtt
.. .... .. .........0........... .J ............Y.... ....... Y ....p..... ~-,' .... .... - ....... ................ ...... ~.... ...~......
our roads aIld driveways. Our children couid not ride ticir bikes, we could not Vv'alk our
d{)gs~ and we- could not peacefully live \vith th1s !cind of traffic. Just the construction
'mffi'" ...f""",,,, ''''oni "o~ G'~I'n'......""...........'I"''''' 'h"" ;"'f'.................. h.,.."" '" Q1"ll'"".... ri I ...."''''' ..... H....~....'... ....'^C
U . 1.... U-J.VJ.lV 'IV U a '" .... - U.UVU\Q- tv {,UV 1.ll.LlU.':H-1UCHHV 011 oJ1 l-''ynr.... LAUl..." VU\.~';)lU5 UUYV
and unsafe conditions. Just having people come to see the Spa wi! I generate unbearable
'Ll"..rr:.. ,,,,"1 'L1.... ......If........ H,l". ......... t1...... 'Qp"
u............, I....U...... ......... P"" v....... .......v ............ .............. ....
visit sites in the rest of Sonthoid Town
f....,a;J:....... u,;11 ..f....lll....... ~..... l"a.,....11:.... ll...... .......,1... lO
..."......................... nJ."" VJ. ""v........ v..... u ...... "1"6 L.L.l.... ..v.....'U....
This wiii engender traffic that wiii canse
accidents and unsafe conditions,
There are other concerns as \vel!. \'\./1!1 thp c....tt:.lOP~ bf"r-omp v..-intpT fpnb1,',l \'\/111 thp-
.. ..-.. -~- ~ ...~~ot;'-... -- ..~..-- "~~..... _....~....~. .,.... .. -.
smeii of cooking waft towards our properties? Wiii the Jobs Import more workers who
".-vil! need to he hOll~ed in the Tov,m_ and \viH thef'..e inh~ nav the \"'!aQe~ that are nece~~:lf'V
, .J 1.J '-' .J
fOI hOilleOWTIership? Tl1ese are real concell1S.
UUi Association is comprise-a ot tirst and secona nomeOVvTIers. Some of us have saved
for years in order to be able to !lve~ \Nor!<~ and retlre here. Some of us !-..ave built our
"0......'... ,u';+J.. 0"'" .....,....... hnn"::'" '\1;'.... hn..,... ....t....;:rll"',........ '::;;,... .......,-. ?'...nn::...,......,' ........0. ......,.......h....n.;,...., L.....""......'"
11 111.... Vl'lU1 Ul Vt1l11U01U,:). "Iv ua~v vJll1Ulvll_ 'VV (U'v llv(llvll......J,:) au UJ'v.....ll0l1.....~7 !(In:Yl,,,l~
and ho!nen!akers. ()ur A.ssoc!a!Jon has rules \V111Ch we tHust abide by_ They are not bent
fur .on..., ............. .....r...........r." \Xl.... ....b~.....,,: .,. ......." . "...---:...............' 1-........1."'.. .,--;"........ ..... :t-.~.' ......r'.';......: .0.....,1..,.....
aul UlI) \.'........11>\.'1'.....1..). ".... \.P 'J..........u U.1I) ..u....................".,..... lib b"""''' L'-' ...."}..'-'J........... ,.ua..... ww.....
cert1!.iniy object to the scope of this proposed SP1! 1"])st M1!rion C1!nnot cope with 1!nythinp,
thi;:: ;::i7':;' \JJp. -Ai-':;' 'A .:..".,;,11 iI".A1 ....-.i-.-iii-."iiih, 'Ai;U.J U.i':;' ,-:;;,,.:;. ....-.l.if,:;.r.t :-h-At Hi';:;'; Thf: .:;m::tIl'
............ ........,...... ..................... ...............u ............... ......v...iJ...u...........~J......... .........................v ...........~ ........~ ......J. _~~_ _~A~_~
Shipyard Lane community cannot sustain this ievei of deveiopment especiaiiy OUT roads
anti fr~rr'lp. '....aterfi-."\nt
-...... L.....OIo... .. .. ..."'.....
In S()utho'd TO~~l1 we. have 2 acre 7on~ng~ and maxj;-rmm lot coverage. sizes on bujJdings.
We are allempling lu reguiale a<:<:essury aparlments. On an 10 a<:rt: paru:i, il is likely thai
only 7 house could be built The scope of this project ~'lr exceeds \-",hat is a1!{Hvable in
the Tovin, and provide no benefits for the residents of East Ivlarion, who are unlikely to
'u"e f'OI"';I;hA" "uch ~~ thp('e ""''''''n occo('ir\n~l"T
.. .....~............. .. u..:. ...._,. ~...... '- ......................_
Please put the concerns of the residents first. and the visitors to the spa a far msta.llt ~,_
second \\o'hen considering t;e negative cnvirornncntal impact t;at a project h1is large and
ambjtlous will have upon the Summit Assoc.iahon homeowners and the en!1re ~'-as!
1\'"....;... ..nd~h; .....,tT"""<.1"""""m......;h.<.., "., I' "'......11.. T'o.'
,Vlul.(,n U" ~_Jl"P)U....l '4~""" "".-'......u...4-J, <<-..' \-vell U::i l:ne ::;urrounUlng ureU::i or '.._'rlllerre fJrlve
1!nd M1!pie L1!ne
Sincereiy,
Cynthia Agosta.., Secretary
Summit Estates 1\sso<:iation
Shipyflrd Lrme
liasl Mwion, N Y 11939
250 Ray Ave_
Box 758
East }~1mion~ :NY 11939
G. Woodhouse. Chalrman
.... .. . ~ ...... ........ . ........ .
uOUln01G 1 oVv'n t'1anI11ng lJOan.l,
Ma!!! road
~"IO;hnL1 l\TV' 110'71
CH.H........."....., ''I' I. --' "
Cha1f1llan ~Nood11ouse and nleiubers of the Planning Board:
T ~- ..--.:t-i-~ "-- -.~;-i"~" ~l...;__,,-;___ --'."r..l;-..... ,,-t..._ __~_~~_...1 nl.; f)- Cln.... -"- "-Le -nn nf
t ;:un ,"'n t~.!!g ~'J ';''JH...., l!!j' 'JuJ<;::.....~!!.}n~ t<;::t5a.U!!!i:J ~l!<;:: .t'!!.}1--....,~'c:u- .........!-~.v ;..}}J::: tH U! Ct......!.....
Shipyard iane in East Marion.
The hamiei ur East Manun cannui susiain such a project. 1 have read Ule ieiier submilied
to yeu by Summit Asso~ir:tion nnd nr:;re:e -'~vith everyone efthelr o"b~ectlens ! have n
iiurnber of others.
1 live on the eOiller of Day Ave. atld Route 25. The traffic continues \vel1 into the
evening on Route 25_ That is a "majo(' road. On a sma!! road such as Sbipyard Lane::
. '....- . ~ ~ . ~
........... .................. ~~......,~....... ......... ......_...._~......~"..........
UH... UaL.l!'...' VYVUIU u\..- UHl\..-u.)vuaUJv.
"0"... ...hL.>. .f",~lt.~.."....... <>TL.>. .....,., n''';'~'''' nh;......f;, .....
.~......\. ,-,...., '''-'' '''-'l'V "'6 u....., "') ..'.....J"-.. '.I\.1J""""'-'''-''',:>.
/\t the end ofBu] Ave. ~NUS U ~-tmuil surnmer
~'fesort;"; nlotel., vlhen I !l!oved here in 1980 fro111 Orient It was quiet~ the traffic was
i.llodt':st and slow and if ii gui not$y a '.vOfd Of i..."o iDOl... cafe of it. I invite yOu to visit
NOW. The huiidim!s are uninhahitahie---at one time sewa!!e wa~ drainin!! into the
~ ~ ~
basenlents. There are dozens of cars, TII0st from "out of state" parked allover. Sheets are
on the windowo. Plywuud covers the winduws and sides ofthe buiiding. There is no
bnrh:.r~ni;;o- '!'hr: t~ffir ..!1 H:;v l. '\,.(": ;, c-.:-.'"':r"ivr. v[':rv fat:t :;;;d;::; mpl1b['.f oft;;nr.$ 1
-'..~~~--r.---o' ~--- .~-~--- - - ~--, .~, -. --. L___~~~' -., -~.l - ~.~~ ___ _ ~~. ~ _ __ ~ _~ ....
have had tu Jump hom the side ufthe road ontu the neighbor's yard in order to avuid
nelno- hit hv n ~nr A~ we ~it in o:jr vnril \-ve: f':nil::rf': !e\.-vn c.ommf>:nt~ fTom d-river~ find our
----Q -~,) ______. ___ ____~_____..-----. - _____u___ _.____~_____________ __~-- ____
pets get teased hom those who wail< and d.rive up ihe road. THiS IS WHAT HAPPUNS
WHEN ,A. PRO.!FCT CANNOT SUSTAIN !TSFI ,F BEING USED 1\S IT WAS
ORIGfi--lALL Y BUILT fOR Because the Cozy Cove winter business was nun-existent,
tllls hotel turned into slu..'TI hcusing~ enda.'1gering an of us on this road. ..A...t one time drug
dcaH!ig took place therc.
'T'l,""'... .........,;..... ~"Q. h"""" n hr...""l ""... ..I.."" ,",",n~-.-. rn.",ri ~... e........... ",1nn'~n ...h.....n. ~ .......~~1"".., .f'r....~n m"
.).11....11 <<-5t.HU vn... ouv.... u- UVl"-'! '-'11 til..., H.LQ1H J.'"-'u..... lit L,U'::>l -'-V~<<-.l V l nuvul..) ll.U.....~ l.HJU. 1.1 J
house. '!'his too was a modest ffi_mjiy hotel, quiet and friendly. in the last 3 years it has
. fl. . 1. . t, 1 '11 1 /T 1 ,. "1_ 1 1 1 I r: I 1 1 .1
gn..n..vu tu ae i:1 nut .fugnt ~lXJL II n<:t~ i:1I1111egal \1 Dt::lleVe} Deu i.tllU urea..r......a::;..., [Janot; UIl tIle
weekends into the night, and a hllSY haT Pi ease come and sit with 1lS on a Satmday night
in the surnrner, frmn ~'/fay on, and listen to the nn:sk. Y 011. must listen to the rnusk:-it is
so ioud it eannot be avoided. We cannot entertain, we eannot open our 'Windows, and
~:-";~_...J... H"':..{.. '.~"r.'" _t....~1.-J_.~_ n~l1 -~"- ~4~.. n~'''''-''-'~'''t..,- h....~-..~~ '-hi" 1~:r.'" -al1"l''- "'l~""'- r
ll1C!~U~ ~"!!U! )"-'!.!...it:; \.-!!J.~'_iltH W!H HUt :':trt)' .J'/;;-!l!J.c,ut J;;-\.:rt.u:,:c t~l_ l".J..J::': ..... u1 t;, ecl-'. _
personaily witnessed the bar seiling to minors. The owners just threaten to turn it into
"~~ve!fare hou~:nQ" \vhen \ve comn!ain Tn ~AA;tiOro ~t ~c< n^\"', ho1n.... ~d'IT.<:!ori;("oA ~(" '~n,..;nto....
U I ." .'-'_n.'u~ ".....~ ..., . .......'.e.L ".......,,~...u ....~ ... ..-.....
rentals." ~vfy point??
If t.l1is Spa is built, ll.nJess these folks are endeavoring to lose money, there '.:vi!! have to be
^ mM.I1........;............ ;.... ....1"'........ f'....... ..1-..... ^..........:....,.;........ ......^ ....f'..~I1^ ...........m.... "'....A ^^Ha....."'" -'-1 f' ...... i-' ...i-;i- .,,;n
u 11 ~'-' lCHU;)Ul lU P!Ov~ .LV!. u.!"" vV'UlIUUIHk; U..,,,,, V.L l.1'-' .LVV Hi) UHU VVllk;~'::'. .LeUl lnUL- lL- .....lU
be wulter rentals, and entertauunent. witt they be like the Cozy Cove rentals'! Or the
B:.....'., ..-...nl..l.,'} Pl......'u_ 'J n..-,,;u,d ,h;., 'Jmh;'l;')"" ;,. TH)i ,'.uda;n'Jhlu;n P:"'l' 1',,'-,a'-;')n
.~... .~ 'w"I.L.<"~' . .w....1w ... l'UJ"'wL L"..~ U !lVI .. u..l..,... L .1u..1L JI "'u'w I LlU.1 IV... I
without some way of usinp; the faciiities an winter It wiii eventuaiiy be unrestricted in
:..._, ___~ _ _., J T':'_ _... , 6_ ,= ~.~ 1._", _n _.._ ...1_ ~J ;..._ -1- _.n _1'''_.__ _" ......1- _ T\t~_ - T)- 'i-1..:.' ,_ - - r ,_ _I)
H::i U~~::i ..1-11U D01.::it IVUt..lt)lllRt.::i UIVl~ UUtt .t.::; ::i.l;..U.~ VI ::;tJ~.::i ,tllt:: DIUt:: .JUlp...lll H_a~ Jllt:::j
and iess-than- iegai housing. We have several community-disrupting estabiishments.
It. -r, .n~ ...L....f'.~ arE' ","1..,~ ......_1..~_... ......-~-a .l::......._'1 117:11 .},.". 1..., p-l.r. --.ao-P'-C.4.... Ln" 1....-........ in
f"'\1I":' L\..V-','\'H<;;.';:; ...... LH':; WV~~.C:l~ '--VIHIHd JnJIH~ '1YIII L.~<;;j' vc: n.j. ','''10........ LV u~y IU,JHIO;:;;:'.I
the Town, or win they be housed ON THE PROPERTY??? This area is primarily
.."''';....1....._...;....1 Tf.';" n~t tt..", ....1,........... ,f:',...,. " Q.....a +1-.;,., ....;....'" .......... r.........+-......~r--. ffil1-h I"......'" .........4+............,., ....nA
!....,::H'!.!\...!!!.!a-!. It ,.,! .~~~ _"..... PH!.....\,-. H..'! a ~Jp I!!!~ "'1.1,..... ....., a- '''..-'~Ia-W-.a-!!!.,!! ~'-'.. Hr'"'' .....Vl!.a-O.~.~ Q..!U
calenng haiis.
-No variances should be given to this project. 1t is too big~ too risk~y and has the potential
to ruin EaRt 1\1anon fer good. '/ariances are not granted to put extra houses on 1
properly. 'v\illy not hold this proje-ct to the same standards? The negative envrroi1IJ.1ental
impact upon East Marion ,,,ill be so severe if this project is given a green light thatifear
for the hamlet. Require a study on t.1.e impacts of tt~is project. Thcn-- Just say no.
~t(reiY, . ~
T'.'~'~t'.~
.L.ilHu:.:i t..;t..nU~lll1 a
ROBERT F. M1J1R
2850 GILLETIE DRIVE
EAST MARION, NY 11939
Ms 1eri Woodhouse, Chairman
Planning Board
Soutbold, NY 11971
October 14,2006
Dear Chairman Woodhouse:
[
Re: Gaia Circle-Oki-Do
As a longtime resident and adjacent property owner I bring to ~our attention three
continuing concerns with the current proposal.
I. Drainage and the overflow onto the bordering Gillette Drive properties
2 The necessity to have the Emegem:y Exit onto Cleaves Point Road be a
truly Gated and Restricted entrance.
3 There be a provision fOT continued Tax Basis fOT the property no matter
what the use designation ie. non-profrt or health n:lated use. This is
particuIady impodaut fortbe benefit of the School District and other fire
protection and support services to our community.
I have written to The Plannirlg Board and The Zoning BoanI of Appeals, copies attached..
These comments are still valid plus these- additiouaI thoughts.
Also enclosed are pictures taken after the October 2005 stonn whicb left our area, and
the Oyster Plant pt~ under 2 feet of water for the southern II3 of the property.
The water table is only 4 it below ground in mudJ of the area and planning to handle the
amount of rain in one of the huge stonns cannot be contained with dry wells that are only
4 feet deep. There is already a dry well at the end of the paved portion of Cleaves point
Road and that is not adequate at the present.
~y submitted,
r4J ~~ 77/~
JUJ-?e1y/1 ~~?~
Robert ~Muir
2850 Gillette Drive
East Marion, NY 11939
() D,
\ 's
0~
~.~""""
ii,',
'i.
,
! '
,
/' l ' ,
Marion Manor Association
2530 Gillette Drive
East Marion, New York 11939
~,;~".
Southold Town Zoning Board
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York] 197]
r
Re: Oki-Do Gaia Holistic Circle
March ] st, 2006
Dear Ms. Oliva,
The Marion Manor Association represents sixty-five homes in Gillette/ East Gillette Drive
area of East Marion. We have concerns regarding the Gaia project which we would like the tOWn
boards to consider. The Gaia project seems admirable, striving for Leeds certification and would no
doubt improve the aesthetics of the property. We are pleased with the removal of the gas pump at the
marina which was in the original proposal. All this aside, consider that any variance and/or zoning
changes granted for the development will remain if the owner decides against pursuing Leeds
certification and for the future owner who will not be operating a holistic spa.
The following page lists are greatest concerns regarding the proposed Gaia project.
Respectfully Submitted
Marion Manor Association
Gene Walker VP
Nancy Grathwohl Sec.
Bob Muir
J. Gillette Drive/Cleaves Point Access Road. The entrance must be marked and
designated "Emergency Vehicles Only" which should he strictly enforced. There
are many young children (J 5) residing on Gillette Drive whose mlmbers
quadruple in the summer with visiting grandchddrcn ,md summer residents. This
exit needs to gated and locked to ensure it is not llsed by Gaia en1ployees,
construction and commercial deliverics. This restrictIon should apply during the
construction as well as after completion.
2. Drainage. Vie have serious problems with flooding on Gillette Drive and do not
want the prohlem enh'1l1ccd hy inadequate draining at the Gaia site. The drainage
plans and hudding plans do not seem sufficient to correct the flooding of this area.
The elevation plan reflects very low lying areas along the east end of the property.
The plans also have tcst bore results which show a large amount of clay in the
area further reducing water saturation into the earth.
3. Owner/Manager's Honse. We believe there is no logical reason why this home
and at least three to five otber structures need to be constructed along the eastern
property line. The homes in tbe current plan arc both too close to the water and
located at the lowest points in the property. most likely wetland area. According
to the ground elevation plan, the south-east corner and up along the easterll\.
property line is at some places as low as two feet above sea level.
4. East Side Parking and Road. The roads and parking areas along the east side of
the property not only further reduce drainage in the area, they also contradict the
"quiet and peaceful" statement of the development. Tbe proposed road runs
parallel to the backyards of properties on Gi lIetle Drive and Cleaves Point Road.
We ask tbat the originally submitted plans be reviewed as they respected the land
witli both betler drainage (ponds) wi tll lcess roads and buildings along the eastern
property line.
::' ;-LHI"jll~l.:l .LJt:.j'l
!,"'I--\l.::lt:. fJ':::
(i
51
fl2)
9)
It~
eOL NTY OF SUFFOLK
STEve L.Ew
SU 'FOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTWENT OF PLANNING
THOMAS A.lsLES, A.l.e,p.
DIR~CTOR OF PLANNING
Ms Amy Ford
Senior Planner
Town of Soutll0ld
P. 0, Box J J 79
Southold. NY 1 J 971
Vi.F.~
1If"""~,.",,~~,..- _.,n'
I
Aug.m-24;-:tOO5 ::;;;..,. l'
f
~, [ IE_~ IE J,~ ~ .. ,ru
" . "
j.. . r,,~, :",.' ;
[t. AUG 2 4 tJJ5 i
L..., Re,~; ,Gaia Holistic ircle, Oki-Do, Ltd.
SCSCTM# 1000-38-7-,,1
Pl.. .'.",1'", :"~'f,,;J
,.....:..c;s;e:-i':e.!\1'o::-- S-G.2031
Dear Ms, Ford;
r' ~.-,"..,.,-~.c...;"j..=-"""-.'''''----
~..,,,.,,.....,
........ .......... _.~___N: .t,
Your notitication for SEQRA CoorditUltion was received by our agency on July 28, 2006. Ple~se be
~,dvised thai: OUr agency, Ihe Suffolk Cou lly Planning Commission, is an interested agency and hence bas no
objection to the Town of South old assum ng Lead Agency stlltus for the obove rd~renced action, The Suffolk
County Planning Comm Issien re,.r\'Os ~le right to comment on this proposed action in the futut'C and wants to
be kept informed of all actiens taken pur;uant to SEQRA
The following comments rogardi 19 this action were provided in thi~ agency's letter of May 3, 2006 to
the Planning Board:
. The mOst landward limil ofwetl,nd "IllS last field flagged Augustl2, 2003. A. wetland lines rend to
migrate over time, the most landward limit of wetland shOuld bere.flagged in the field by a qualified
.xpert and reprcsented on all fim I plans, etc. All wetland setbacks should be readjusted accordingly.
· The applicellt should review the Suffolk COUllty Planning Department 1990 report "Study of Man-
Mede Ponds in Sutfolk COllnty, '~Y" prior to final design with the TOwn.
. Landscaping on th~ subjeot proplrty should be non.fertilizer dependent lI.tivo p.lant species,
. All drainage should b. kept on site and not flow into wetlands or public right-of-way.
Tl1ar;k you for tile t'pporruni1y to comment on this action.
Sincerely,
f1-4f~(;;.
Peter K. Lamb~.r;
PrlryCipal Planne'
co Andrew Fre/eng, Chief PlanMr
t\t\8EQRAI2CCc\S!ll~tl1C'id",Gilia holistic; Circle (lki Dod'!c
LOCA110N
~,LEE DENNISON BLDG, "4TH FLOOR.
100 '/ETf;RA!\lE V:EMOR~Al HI(~HVV,1Y
MAILING ADDRESS
p, O. eox 6100
HAL.;P~AUGE, NY 117ElS-Ooge
.
(e31) 663-5190
f., (a31) 853-4044
1/
y>
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental permits, Region One
Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Phone: (631) 444-0365 FAX: (631) 444-0360
Involved Agencies
August 21, 2006
~tTr-
.....
~
Denise Sheehan
Commissioner
Jl
1/
Ii
I I)
. , ,
Dear SIrs/Madams: i .. ..... i" _ -i"'", .I I
The purpose of this request is to determine under the State Envirohinental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
of the Envirorllilental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617 the following:
Rc:
LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION REQUEST
[I
1:1'
Iii
I,'
!
'I
AUG 2 8 2006
NYSDEC
Town of Southold
Suffolk County Deparlment of Health
::~ Gr~\
t..=:J !Lo
"ii-----;-~'\.7
, 1!
,:,
i'
I. Your agency's jurisdiction in the action described below;
2. Your agency's interest in acting as lead agency;
3. Issues of concern your agency believes should be evaluated.
Enclosed is a copy of our pennit application and a completed Part I ofthe Environmental Assessment Form
(EAF) to assist you in responding.
Proiect Name: OKl-DO LTD. Gaia Holistic Circle @ East Marion Hotel Project
Location: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
,.
DEC Application #: 1-4738-00728/00008
SEORA Classification: [x] Type I [] Unlisted
Permit Type: Tidal Wetlands
DEC Position:
[ ] DEC wishes to assume lead agency status.
[x] DEC has no objection to your agency or another agency assuming lead
agency status for this action, but reserves the right to comment on this action if a positive detennination
of significance is made.
Please respond to my attention within 30 days ofthe date ofthis letter. lfno response is received within 30
days, we will assume that you have no objection to DEe or another agency assuming the role oflead agency,
and have no comments to offer regarding the proposed action at this time.
Please feel free to contact tlllS office at (631) 444-0365 for further information or discussion.
Sincerely,
~-,~
;;~;;;.c~~~
cc:
(see distribution list above)
_ Kendall Klett
o :_~ ~. ~ ~ \'/7 It lflirvlronmcntal Analyst
~UG2 8 2006 ,WI
-_-!~~,::'t5t"i!_'___~
.J.;:?:='~~'~~~r.f~'''''''~j'''''-.c' ___.'
1\o;__,"_,.,<_,c~.. ~A""""""'i,;L.i'j1k,~~,
Applicable to agencies end permit categorte-s Hated jn Item 1 Please read aN instructiOllll on back Attad) addiUonallntonTlation as Meded Please print legibly Of type.
FOR PERMIT
1. ChecI< pennHs epplied 'or:
NY9 Depl of Environmental Conservation
o Slreem Dlsturbanoe (Bad and Bank.)
o Navigable Waters (Excavatlon and Fill)
o Docks, MOOrings or Platforms
(Construct or Place)
o Dams and Impoundment Structures
(Construct, Reconstruct or Repair)
o Freshwater 'Netlands
o Tidal Wetlands
o Coastal Erosion Control
o Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
o 401 Water Quality Certffication
o Polable Water Supply
o long Island WlIIs
o Aquatic Vegetation Control
o Aquatic Insect Control
o Fish Control
NYS Offlce of General Services
(State Owned Lands Under Water)
o Lease, UCense, Easement or
olhe< Raal Property Interes'
Utility Easement (Pipelines, conduits,
cables, etc.)
o DocI<s, Moorings Of P1a1forms
(Construct or Place)
Adlronda<k Pari< Agency
o Fle5hwalar WlUand. P..-m.
o Wid, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
Lake George Park Comm1s.s1on
o Dock. (Con.truct Of Place)
o Mooring. (Establlah)
US Army Corps of Engineers
o Section 404 (Walef1l or Ihe Un'ad States)
o Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Ad)
o Nationwide P..-m. (.)
Identify Numbar(.)
For Agency UM Only:
DEC APPlICA nON NUMBER
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
.
m
New York State
U 'd States Army Corps of Engineers
2. Nema of Applicant (U full na,,/,,) '\:.
OKI-DOLTD. _ f-(l,?VO
Mailing Add.....
ONE LINCOLN PLAZA"AP.T...24E
Post OffIce
NEW YORK
Telephone Number {daytime)
212799-9711
u-
3. Taxpayer 10 {tf applicant Is not indivl;duaQ 9
Zip Coda
10023
4. Applicant Is aJan: (check as
o OWner 0 Operator
5.11 applicant is not the owner, Identi
Owner or Agent/Contact Person
CRAMER CONSULTING
Mailing Add.....
PO BOX 5535
Post Oflic:e
MILLER PLACE
a'~pply) .,
Le..... 0 MunicipalitY f Go'ie~ ency
If~~.:'-~""!e._ rw~:J~.ma. ~ provide~A ent/Contact Person information.
OMler 0 Agent fContact P Telephone Namber {daytime)
ROp . " : . 631 476-0984
ZlD Code
11764
&, ProJect I FeCIHty Loca1lon (marl< 1ocatIo'l'll',ll)8gi....
COunty; T CitvMUaae: .
SUFFOLK EAST MARION
Inf1'l1~'~)
-~_._.- .----1 MaD Section! Block /lot Number:
1000-38-7-7,1
Location (includlflll Street Of Road)
E1S SHIPYARD LANE
T~eohone Number (davtime)
Post OffIce
EAST MARION
8. Name of USGS Quad Map:
GREEN PORT QUAD
Location Coordinates:
7. Name of stream or Waterbody (on or near project site)
GARDINERS BAY
NYTM-E
NYTM-N 4
9. Project Descr1pUon and Purpose: (Category of Activity e.g. new constructionlinstallation, maintenance or
replacement; Type of Structure Of Activity e.g. bulkhead, dredging, filling, dam, dock, taking of water; Type of Materials
and Qua:ntities: Strvcture and WoO< Area Dimensions; Need or Purpose Served)
PROPOSED REMOVAL OF ABANDONED INDUSTRIAL BLOGS.;
CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL FOR 114 GUESTS, RESTAURANT, VARIOUS
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; REFURBISH BOAT BASIN/SLIPS; CREATION OF
LAKE; LANDSCAPING; RECONSTRUCT EXISTING BULKHEADING; DREDGING;
REMOVAL OF DETERIORATED SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES;
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SHORELINE PROTECTION STRUCTURES,
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
o La 0
Privata Public Commercial
11. Will Project Occupy
stale Land?D La
Yes No
UNKNOWN
12. PrOPOSed tart
Data:
13. Estimated Completion
Data:
14. H.. Work Begun on Project? (If yes, attach 0 0 15. List Previous Pennlt f ApplJcaUon Numbers and Dates: (If Any)
explanation of why wor1<. was started wiUlout j)efmit.) Yes No
16. Will thl' Project Requl... AddlUonal
Federal, S1atll, or Local Permits?
~, ~ ~;.';';; List TOWN OF SOUTHOLO, SCDHS
17. If applicant II not the owner, ~ must Ilgn the application
I hereby affirm that infonnatlon provided on this fOrm and all attachments 8Ubmitted herewith is true to the bes1 of my knOWledge and belief. False statements made herein
are punishable as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal law. Further, the applicant accepts full responsibility for ah damage, direct or indirect,
or whatever nature, and by whomever suffered, arising out of the prYJ;ed desaibed herein and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the State from suits, actions,
damages and costs of evOf}' name and dasCI1p1ion resulting ~om said project In addition, Federal law, Ie U.S. C., Section 1001 provides for a fine of not more than
$10,000 or Imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both where an applicant knowingly and wlllingty falsifies, conceals, or coven up a material fact; or knowingly makes
or uses a ratse, flc:tlcious or fraudulent statement
Dale
Signature of Applicant
Signature of ONner
Date
Tnle
Title
,
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 iitUe or no formal
knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmentai 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 nexible enough to allow introduction of information to nt 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
~.-
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 0 Part 2 DPart 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:
DETERMINA TION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
DA
The project will not resuit 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.
DB
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
· CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared. .
Dc
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
Gaia Holistic Circle @ East Marion
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer (IF diFFerent from responsible officer)
Date
Page 1 of 21
Please Complete Each Question..lndicate N.A. if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall proJect. both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use 0 Urban
o Forest
[2] Industrial
o Agriculture
o Commercial 0 Residential (suburban)
o Otl,er Abandoned industrial bUildings
o Rural (non-farm)
2. Total acreage of project area: 18.7115 acres
APPROXIMA TE ACREAGE
Forested
PRESENTLV AFTER COMPLETION
J 4.4 acres 9.1 acres
acres acres
acres acres
0.1 acres 0.1 acres
1.4 acres 7-- 2.1 acres
1.5 acres 1.0 acres
1.3 acres 6.3 acres
acres acres
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Agricultural (Includes orchards. cropland. pasture. etc.)
Wetland (FreshWater or tidal as per Articles 24.25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock. earth or nil)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type)
3. What is predominant soH type(s) on project site?
a. Soil drainage: 0Well drained -.!..QQ.% of site o Moderately well drained_% of site.
o Poorly drained _ % of site
b. If any agricultural iand is involved. how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NVS Land
Classification System7 acres (see 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? 0 Yes 0 No
a. What is depth to bedrock
N A (in feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes:
00-10%-lQQ.% 010'15%_% o 15%orgreater_%
6. Is project sUbstantiaJ!;Lfontiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of
Historic Places? U Yes 0 No
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 0 Ves 0NO
B. What is the depth of the water table?
0-18 (in feet)
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer?
0ves
DNo
Dves
0NO
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area?
Page 3 of 21
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as tllreatened or endangered? Elves 0 No
Accordina to:
Cramer Consulting Group
IdentifY each soecies:
Osprey nC.'i1 in southeast corner of site. Area will remain natural any construction near it will be timed 10 avoid disturbance during
nesting periods.
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project sile? (I.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?
Dves
[!]NO
Describe:
The sit~ is located adjacent to Gardiners Bay. While portions of the site contains udune species" in lhe SE portion afsile, the entire
been disturbed in the past. However, this SE portion oCthe site willremain tlnatural".
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
DYes 0No
If yes, explain:
"
1 4. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
Dves
[!]NO
The site presently contains deteriorated, abandoned industrial buildings, that visually impact the visual quality.
15, Streams within or contiguous to project area:
INA
a, Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
NA
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
Site is adjacent to Gardiners Bay, The site surround an unnamed dredged basin unsed in conjuction with the previous oyster
processing use. The north, south and west sides of the basin are bulkheaded, the eastern portion of the shoreline contains tidal
wetlands. An inlet connects the basin to Gardiners Bay.
b, Size (in acres):
The basin is 1,3862 acres in size.
.
Page 4 of 21
17. Is the site served by existing public utiiities?
[!J Ves
DNo
[!]Yes
ONO
" if VES, does sufficient capacity exist to aliow connection?
b. If VES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
DVes
[!]NO
18, Is the site located in an agricultural district cerMed pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25.M, Section 303 and
304? Dves E]NO
19. Is the site iocated in or substantia'!l:.::.ontiguouS to a Critical Environmental Area designated. pursuant to Article 8 of the EeL.
and 6 NVCRR 6177 Dves ~No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
Dves
0No
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (nil in dimenSions as appropriate).
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor:
18.7115 acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed:
1?2 acres initially;
17,2 acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 1.5
acres.
d. Length of project. in miles:
NA (if appropriate)
,.
€. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed NA %
f. Number of off.street parking spaces existing Aband.; proposed 189
g, Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour:" 107 peak (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family
Two Family
Multiple Family
Condominium
Initially
o
o
o
Ultimately
1 14room5
o
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure:
35' height;
190' width;
200' length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project wili occupy is?
928 ft.
2. How much natural material (i.e, rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed [!]ves DNo 0 N/A
5,363 tons/cubic yards.
a. If yes. for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
I Landscaping
b.
Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [!] Ves 0 No
Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [!] Ves 0 No
c.
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) wiil be removed from site?
16.1 acres.
Page 5 of 21
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
DYes
0NO
6. If single phase proJect: Anticipated period of construction: ~ months. (including demOlition)
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated..22!:.l (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1, ---.l month 2007 year, (including demolition)
c. Approximate completion date of final phase: -E month~IO~year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 0 Yes D No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? D Yes 0 No
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction
200' : after project is complete
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 100
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes. explain
,.
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes 0 No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial. ete) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? 0 Yes 0 No Type Sanitary stormwater runoff
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes. explain:
Project includes the creation ofapprox. 0.7 acre naturalized lake/water feature on site as part of the landscaping.
15_ Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year nood plain? 0ves ONo
16. Will the prqject generate solid waste? 0 Yes 0 No
a. If yes. what is the amount per month? 0.7 tons
b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? 0 Yes 0 No
c. If yes, give name Southold Transfer Sta. ; location Cu(chogue, Southold
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanital)' landfill? 0ves 0 No
Page 6 of 21
e. If yes, explain:
It is intended to recycle porI ions of the abandoned building (steel, concrete, eel.) during demolition,
'7. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes 0NO
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal?
tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
'8. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes 0 No
, g. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes 0 No
20: Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? DYes 0NO
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? 0 Yes D No
"t,
If yes, indicate type(s)
fossil fuels, electricity to operate facility.
22, If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity
NA gallons/minute.
23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes 0 No
If yes, explain:
Page 7 of 21
)IIO,I..Mat'a1oM.ll'lOlIlOM'IQI. .. ~
' IIfY"lCll't'MIMI,--
PICIlln:llW:I :rJ:YO OLJ.SI""IOH VflIO.. ~~
1IIlI..,........1Ifn:). ':J:J:Jl1lOH
, CII.LClftI't ,~. 'ti'
. . rmIO'IICl 3efl - N'o'1d aus ..... ~
.. ~ ~
__ (I~ IlW ___.1)
tdU""'OON_ __Will a::I
"j"
m '''lO''lJ1l0'''' iO
~OUUoO.O-..qn.Qo'nna I
I
~ i
~ I II I
~IIII
; S s ~II I
~ ~ ! ! hi ~ ~ ~~ I
~ I ~ ~ III I I I~ I N m
~ ~ I ~ I I
i
~ @ @ @ @ @) e @ @ e e G
~
I
II
~-
I'
-
'=:-
o1f.t
4-
....
I
i ~~G
I
\
I
- ~-~(.~ .
-- CII'OlI.ltIOol~ ~
..-..,.--.
'-;;;:"\\" \ ,L ~-
-. \
\ '
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I I I
1 f---
I I
i ~ I
Ii ,----
:1 I
I I
I r--
.\
! ! ! ! ! !I
I ._1- =.- . L .. _ _1 . =-- .. ~~..... .. L.J II
L - ~ - ------- ~ ----J I
!
1___
\
.----
-I'
I
I
I
I
I
.~
Ii
I
.~ ~
I
I
I
I '"
I I z ~
I ~ ~
I?' ~ ill
." Cf) <I
.1' ~
I
.11/
-0