Loading...
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