HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile # 3 i •
Cleaves Point Condominiums
CPC Cleaves Point Club and Marina, Inc.
2820 Shipyard Lane
East Marion, N.Y. 11939
Tel/Fax 631477-8657 cleavesnoint()optonline.net
September 8th 2014 SEP 9 2014 ��
US Arm Corps of Engineers manning
a :
�' 1� g Ftnniny Board____
New York District
Jacob K Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278-0090
Attention: Regulatory Unit
Public Notice Number NAN- 2013-01475-EYA
Applicant Oki Do Ltd
I am writing on behalf of the owners of the 62 condominium units known as Cleaves Point
Condominiums on Gardiners Bay located at 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York
11939. Our property is immediately adjacent (to the west) to the Oki Do planned project.
Cleaves Point Condominiums opposes the application of Oki Do Ltd for dredging,
bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction and new dock construction.
Our unit owners respectfully suggest that the Corps consider this application in the context
of the entire scope of the proposed Oki Do project and not just the scope of work as stated
in your Notice.
The applicant's proposal for the project, which dates back to 2003, is for the development
of an 18.3 acre site on Gardiners Bay, at the south end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion
NY 11939, with a "transient motel". The motel units would be housed in 24 different
buildings on the site, including one 51,422 square foot, two-story building, a 3,834 square
foot restaurant, a 1,987 square foot "managers residence", a 7,205 square foot
maintenance/utility building, and a 1,373 square foot pool house with an indoor pool. The
applicant also has proposed to construct a Marina with 16 private boat slips within the
existing 1.38 acre dredged basin, a wooden bulkhead boardwalk, and three timber floating
dock systems. This description was contained in a DEIS submitted by the applicant to the
Town of Southold. In 2008, the Town of Southold requested revisions to the DEIS that
were never submitted by the applicant.
• i
Five years later, in 2013, the applicant informed the Town of Southold that they would like
to proceed with their various applications. The Town informed the applicant that it could
not proceed with its original application nor submit a revised DEIS because such a long
time had elapsed from the time of the original submission. Among other things pointed
out by the Town, the Town Code had changed and the condition of the property had
changed since the originally DEIS was submitted, all of which were factors that led to the
Town's determination to require the applicant to start the process anew.
Instead of renewing its application with the Town, the applicant has applied to the DEC
and Army Corp. of Engineers, however, those agencies have not been informed of the
scope and magnitude of the applicant's project.
It seems clear that the application currently before the Corps concerns just a small part of
their entire project. As such, the applicant is clearly trying to -segment" this project into
small parts, and this type of"segmentation" is clearly in violation of the SEQRA process
and has been struck down by the New York Courts.
Should the Corps require any additional information, please feel free to contact the
undersigned or our counsel, David M. Dubin, Esq., at Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley,
Dubin & Quartararo, LLP, (631) 727-2180.
Sincerely,
Howard Weisler, President
cc: Town of Southold Planning Department
David M. Dubin, Esq.
�m� Ives
Post Office Box 569
�� 2442 Main Street
G0P Bridgehampton,NY 11932-0569
,._.—__Tel- 631.537.1400
FOR THE EAST END
Fix: 631.537.2201
''•` wtiw.groupfortheeastend.org
December 22, 2008
Chairwoman Jeri Woodhouse
&Members of the Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179 __•
President
Southold, NY 11971
- -----
Robert S. DeLuca
Re: Proposed Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa- Zoning
Chairman (SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1)
William S.McChesney,Jr.
Vice Chairman Dear Chairwoman Woodhouse&Members of the Board,
Ann Colley
Board Members Recently, Group for the East End submitted comments to the Planning Board
Harris A. Barer in a letter dated November 4, 2008 regarding our review of the Draft
W. Marco Birch Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Shizen Hotel Wellness
Wilhelmus B. Bryan Center&Spa. In this letter,we expressed concerns regarding the proposal's
Mark Burchill �.
Claudia Camozzi classification as a"Hotel or Motel Transient use.
Andrew Goldstein
Richard D. Kahn As a result of our concerns the Group consulted our legal counsel,Jeffrey L.
Ronald S. Lauder Bragman Esq.,an experienced land use attorney,to review the application
Sandra R. Meyer
Christopher Pia and its conformance to applicable definitions within Southold's town code.
Peter Schellbach
Jahn Shea In short, counsel's review of the proposed application makes clear that the
Alan Siegel
Ellen Sosnow Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa proposal has very likely been incorrectly
John C.Waddell classified as conforming to the"Hotel or Motel Transient' definition found
Mary walker within Chapter 280 Article I General Provisions of the Town Code.
Advisory Committee
Mrs.James H.French More specifically, our counsel has found that the application clearly contains
Edward Gorman several use elements that would conform to the"Hotel or Motel Resort"
Sherrye Henry definition,which is not a permitted use in the Marine II zoning district,
Arnold Leo
Peter Matthiessen where the subject parcel is situated.
Muriel O.Murphy
Lionel Pincus We respectfully request that the Planning Board review Mr. Bragman's
John Sargent comments and recommendations as set forth within the attached letter.
James Trees
Harold M.Wit
We believe that resolving the identified zoning questions raised by this
application is paramount to achieving the most responsible review.
FIGHTING FOR THE QUALITY OF YOUR LIFE
i0"=Cu=t Coreumcr/50"„6ambo196cr
RG
U
FOR THE EAST END
As a result, Group for the East End recommends that the Planning Board
request a formal use interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals before
the project moves any further in the review process.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please contact me at
your convenience if you have any comments or questions. I can be reached
at (631) 765-6450, ext. 213 or at bdeluca@eastendenvironment.org.
Sincerely,
Robert S. DeLuca
President
Encl.
cc: Heather Lanza, Director of Planning
IOU pnxt-con,umer ,,wk d p.,,
,JEFFREY L. BRAGMAN, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
15 RAILROAD AVENUE • SUITE 1
EAST HANIPTON. NEW YORK 1 1937
TELEPHONE 6313243737
FAX 631 324-7888
jbragman@aol.com
December 10, 2008
Mr. Robert DeLuca, President
Group for the East End
P.O. Box 1792
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Shizen Application
Dear Mr. Deluca:
The Group for the East End has requested that I review the Southold Town
Zoning definitions and requirements for the pending Shizen project, currently under
review. Specifically, I have reviewed the zoning definitions for"Hotel or Motel,
Transient" and "Hotel or Motel, Resort." Based on that review, I note that only a "Hotel
or Motel, Transient" is a permitted use in the M11 District. I understand that that there is
some question as to which of these two definitions more closely defines the uses
proposed for the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa. We are concerned that the
Town of Southold correctly apply the definitions in its pending site plan review.
The two definitions contained in the Town of Southold Code distinguish less
intensive transient hotel/motel uses from more intensive resort hotel/motel uses. It
appears that the Shizen Hotel project falls more appropriately into the latter use
category.
First, we note that the Shizen project as described in the Feasibility Study of
March, 2006, includes both a "private cafeteria/dining room" and an additional
restaurant use for the general public.
Comparing the definitions for both transient and resort hotels, it would appear
that these two uses can only be approved for a resort hotel. Resort hotels may include
dining rooms AND a restaurant. Transient hotels are not permitted to have dining
rooms, although restaurants are permitted.
Similarly, the applicant's Feasibility Study indicates that a spa facility is a central
component of the application. Thus, the Feasibility Study states that "the spa is the
core concept. The spa comprises 27 treatment rooms, consultation offices and a
number of Onsen Mineral pools." Clearly, this type of structure is a personal service
"facility." Such a facility is only permitted for Resort Hotels. Transient Hotels may
provide "accessory personal services." However, the definition makes no provision for
a facility to provide such services.
Similarly, it appears that the intended use fits the resort hotel, not the transient
hotel description. The applicants intend that guests will stay for protracted visits. Thus
their descriptive materials commented, "this is not a place for a quick overnight stay. It
is more suited to an average stay for 4-7 days." Transient hotels are defined as
facilities for transients on an overnight basis. Only resort hotels are permitted longer
visits of a week or more.
Also troubling is the proposal for a marina use. We note that the "Hotel or Motel,
Transient" definition makes no provision for an accessory marina use. In contrast,
"Hotel or Motel, Resort," does permit a private dock as an accessory use. Again, this
aspect of the proposed use would appear to be limited to resort hotels.
Another issue which must be considered is whether both the dock or marina use,
and the proposed restaurant are principal or accessory uses. While a dock may be an
accessory use, a marina use is a permitted use in the Marine II District. Depending
upon the type of services and features, the dock may be an accessory or a principal
use.
My recommendation would be that the record of the reviewing agency should
clearly define and distinguish the types and nature of uses under review. Specifically,
the status of each aspect of this proposal as a principal or accessory use should be
understood prior to any action or Determination of Significance. All proposed structures
and uses must reflect zoning code definitions. As necessary, reviewing Boards should
obtain advice of counsel to insure that reviewing Boards assess the application's
conformity to zoning requirements. In addition, this type of analysis should be useful to
the Boards in connection with their SEQRA review. As you are aware, SEQRA
requires a comprehensive review of all related structures and uses at once with all
impacts considered without segmentation as defined.
Ultimately, the Zoning Board of Appeals alone has the jurisdiction to issue
interpretations of statute. See, Southold Town Code Section 280-146. Thus, despite
any preliminary finding as to these issues, in the event of any dispute, an appeal to the
ZBA would appear to be appropriate to make the final determination whether the
proposed dock and restaurant each constituted an accessory use, or an additional
principal use on site.
My research indicates that the application should be deemed to be a "hotel or
motel, resort', which is not a permitted use in the MII District. Further determination
should be made as to the nature of the related restaurant and dock uses. In the event
of a dispute as to these issues, the question would ultimately be decided by the Zoning
Board of Appeals through the mechanism of an appeal.
•
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Very Truly Yours,
Jeffre L. Bragman
JLB:mb
` East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625 East Marion, NY 11939 • www.emca.us
December 17, 2008
Chairwoman Jeri Woodhouse
and Members of the Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa-Zoning
(SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1)
Dear Chairwoman Woodhouse and Members of the Board:
In early November, the East Marion Community Association submitted comments to the
Planning Board regarding our review of the Shizen Draft Environmental Statement for
completeness. At that time we also raised questions regarding the classification of the
proposal as a "Hotel or Motel Transient" use.
Following up on this issue, our colleagues at The Group for the East End have consulted
with their legal counsel, Jeffrey L. Bragman, regarding the conformance of this proposed
project with the applicable definitions within the Southold Town Code. The Group has
shared their lawyer's letter with EMCA.
The East Marion Community Association joins with The Group in requesting that the
Planning Board review Mr. Bragman's letter and commit to resolving the zoning
questions regarding the Shizen proposal before the project moves any further in the
review process.
Thank your for your consideration. Please contact me if I may be of any assistance
regarding this matter. I can be reached at (631)477-1619 or at ruthann(4)eastmarion.com.
Sincerely,
Ruth Ann Bramson
President
Summit Estates -AJ
East Marion,NY
11939
11/01/08
Heather Lanza
Planning Department
Town of Southold
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Ms. Lanza:
We are writing to inform you of our opposition to the Shizen/Oki-Do project which has
recently submitted their DEIS to your department.
Our opposition stems from the scope and size of the project as well as the necessity for
variances for a great many of the major components of this project. Shipyard Lane and
its residents cannot accommodate the increased traffic, noise, and lack of access to the
waterfront. The environmental impacts of this project are far greater than the loss of
farmland and waterfront, and the infrastructure improvements necessary will negate any
positive tax implications.
While we are not adverse to reasonable development of this or any other property, it must
be suitable for the community and surrounding area. This project is not.
Thank you.
Sincerely /d
x�e Boar f Summit Estates
Cynthia Agosta, Secretary
Cc Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Planning Board
1
i
• � K� s�F
r
P�
J. Kent
Shipyard Lane
East Marion, NY 11939
1(631)477-6348
November 10, 2008
Planning Board Department
Subject: Shizen DEIS report analysis
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed please find a copy of my Shizen DEIS report analysis. It is my intension to present my
views on this subject based on analysis and evaluation of traffic, environment, emergency
services, etc..
Your review of the enclosed documentation will be appreciated.
J. Kent
9 •
SHIZEN DEIS REPORT ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
November 10, 2008.
J. Kent
Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY 11939
1(631)477-6348
e-mail: JKEMAIL@GMAIL.COM
3'
1 •
TABLE OF CONTENT
PURPOSE........................................................................................... 1
1.0 TRANSPORTATION........................................................................ 1
1.1 ACCESS AND ROAD SYSTEM
1.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1.3 GAP STUDY
1.4 SHIPYARD LANE AND MAIN ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY
1.5 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ON SHIPYARD LANE
1.6 LOSE OF SCENING SITE
1.7 NOT MENTIONED/EXPLAINED TRAFFIC
1.8 ACCIDENT REPORTS
2.0 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS............................... 4
2.1 DATA INACCURACY
2.2 LONG ISLAND FERRY
2.3 INCREASE OF LOCAL POPULATION
2.4 TRAFFIC LIGHT FOR SHIPYARD LANE AND MAIN ROAD INTERSECTION
3.0 Community Facilities and Services............................................ 6
3.1 FIRE PROTECTION AND AMBULACE SERVICE
3.2 EAST MARION FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.0 PURPOSE, NEED, AND BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.............. 7
4.1 TAX REVENUES
4.2 JOBS
5.0 DENIAL OF QUALITY OF LIFE.......................................................... 8
6.0 ENVIRONMENT............................................................................... 9
7.0 WETLANDS AND BASIN/CANAL DREDGING....................................... 9
8.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 10
i t
PURPOSE
The purpose of this documentation is to provide a summary opinion based on information provided by the
Shizen DEIS report, describing the proposed Shizen Hotel Wellness Center& Spa. For the purpose of review
and analysis, a CD copy (Shizen DEIS Sept 08) containing this actual DEIS report, was obtained from the
Planning Board Department, Town of Southold, on Sep 17'h2008. However, the "APPENDIX I (Traffic
Study)" of this DEIS report, containing traffic information, was not found on the provided CD and the Planning
Board Department was notified about it(Sep 28th 2008). Subsequently, a CD copy with the"APPENDIX I
(Traffic Study)"was available at a later date (Oct. I Oth 2008).
The results of conducted analysis, concerning Shizen DEIS report, are summed up in documentation, named,
Main Report. Additional APPENDICES 1 —9, are attached to this documentation.
1.0 TRANSPORTATION
The section of Shizen DEIS report, describing traffic condition(pages 134-137,220-238,251-254), is
oversimplified and vital information is missing thus giving a distorted picture of the actual traffic behavior,
traffic conditions and traffic problems. Because of these presented limitations, a casual reader of this Shizen
DEIS documentation might not notice the actual traffic picture for this area.
1.1 ACCESS AND ROAD SYSTEM
Describing Shipyard Lane as the lane that provides access, for only several single-family dwellings and the
Cleaves Point Condominium complex, is an incomplete statement as well as it is a misleading statement(see
Shizen DEIS 3.5.1 Access and Road System,page 133,paragraph 2).
In addition to the Cleaves Point Condominium complex there are over 30 private homes on Shipyard Lane.
Furthermore,there are omitted the private homes of Summit Estate complex and the private homes on Private
Road RD7 (Fire Road)that are using and accessing Shipyard Lane as well (see Map 1.1 in APPENDIX 1).
Using the words "several' single family dwellings"and oversimplification of the report description, the
provided information by the Shizen DEIS report is highly inaccurate and misleading.
The shoulder width(s) on both sides of Main Road (NYS Route 25)are described inaccurately(see Shizen DEIS
3.5.1 Access and Road System, page 133, paragraph 3). Measurements, in the vicinity of Shipyard Lane,
showed that the general shoulders width(s) were 7—8 feet. In order to describe the road condition and its use
more accurately, it is important to note that shoulders, on both sides of the Main Road(Route 25), are used by
bicyclists,joggers, pedestrians and parked automobiles as well (see pedestrian Photo 7.3, APPENDIX 7).
1.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The latest information provided by the New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT) revealed that
the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) showed 10,520 vehicles per day in 2007. The estimated AADT
traffic count, 10,520 vehicles per day in 2007, represents measurements on Main Road(NYS Route 25), from
County Road 48 to Narrow River Road. This latest 2007 data should be used instead of the old data from 2004
(see Shizen DEIS, 3.5.3 Traffic Volume,page 134).
Webster's New World Dictionary&Thesaurus states that the word"several"means"more than two but not many;of an indefinite but small
number,a few."
1
i t
0
It should be noted that the NYSDOT reportz reveals 10,520 vehicles per day in 2007 as well as 10,030 vehicles
per day in 2004; 7,440 vehicles per day in 2001; and 4,950 vehicles per day in 1998. The NYSDOT report
shows steady traffic increases from 1998 until 2007.
1.3 GAP STUDY
In the"Gap Study" section, (see Shizen DEIS, 3.5.5 Gap Study, page 136, 137 and 227), describing vehicles
making a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road (NYS Route 25) appears oversimplified and misleading.
According to the statement: "This critical gap, as it is called, for the northbound left turn is 7.2 seconds for the
first turning vehicle. Subsequent turning vehicles behind the first require an additional 3.5 seconds to turn into
the same gap."
Considering the following simple processing steps: Deceleration, queuing, queue move-up, stopping, stop, yield
the-right-of-way to vehicles and pedestrians to or approaching the intersection; go when it is safe. These steps
require more time in order to complete a left tum than would allow the indicated time of 7.2 seconds and
subsequent 3.5 seconds for the following vehicles as it is suggested by the Shizen DEIS report. These suggested
numbers are unrealistic (see APPENDIX 2 and APPENDIX 6.0 attached to this documentation).
Queuing, queue move-up(s) and repeated stopping(s) and goings are additional delays for all vehicles before
making a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road(NYS Route 25). All these steps require certain amount of
time, causing delays. According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000,there is about 10 sec for the first left
turning vehicle and 10.1 - 15.0 for the subsequent vehicle behind the first one. These numbers are more realistic
because suggest delays that consist of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final
acceleration delay in order to complete the left turn. The seconds per vehicle are then increasing for each
following vehicles ( < 10.0; 10.1 — 15.0; 15.1 —25.0;...) (see Shizen DEIS report,page 225). Nevertheless, it
must be recognized that even these given results are based on ideal conditions and cannot show the actual time
needed for left turning vehicles from Shipyard Lane to Main Road. Therefore, using only these data-numbers
will be misleading as well as they will lead to oversimplification of the actual traffic conditions and traffic
problems.
For example,these numbers, provided above, do not reflect the actual conditions such as:
■ Required an existing and sufficient traffic-stream gap of certain length in both directions concurrently on
Main Road.
■ Yield the-right-of-way to bicyclists and pedestrians (see shoulders description above and see "STOP
Sign Definition" in APPENDIX 2 attached to this documentation).
■ Good weather condition.
■ Human factor. For example, hesitating drivers. According to the insurance industry, senior citizens are
more cautious drivers and thus need more time.
2
The New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT)are stating the following in their description about "Traffic Data Collection
Program":
"The New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT)collects,summarizes and interprets information on the traffic traveling the State's
highway system.The data is used to assess transportation needs and system performance as well as to develop highway planning and programming
recommendations.Other government agencies and private businesses also employ this information."
2
■ Vehicles, although first in queue,that do stop prematurely but without having clear view,must move up
and stop again thus causing additional delay (see Figure 2.1 and"STOP Sign Definition" in APPENDIX
2, attached to this documentation).
■ Suppose there is a sufficient gap in the traffic flow in both directions on Main Road, but at that moment
another vehicle is making a right turn from Main Road to Shipyard Lane. This right turning vehicle
obstructs the view for the first vehicle in the queue that is getting ready to make a left turn from
Shipyard Lane to Main Road. Because of it, the first vehicle in queue must stop again and proceed when
safe.
There are additional situations that might slow down the traffic and cause delays that are not mentioned above.
Nevertheless, it is evident that as the number of vehicles is increasing(the length of traffic queue is increasing)
and so is increasing the time for each vehicle to make left turns from Shipyard Lane to Main Road (NYS Route
25) (see APPENDIX 6 attached to this documentation).
According to the estimates provided by the Shizen DEIS report, 90% of vehicles will be making a left turn and
only 10%right turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road(see Shizen DEIS, page 223). Whether left turning
vehicles or right turning vehicles, a formed long queue at this intersection will force all vehicles to stay in a
single long queue before making an appropriate left or right turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road.
It appears that this problem will not be fully eliminated even if there is created a right-turn-off lane on Shipyard
Lane. A long queue will not immediately allow right-turning vehicles to reach the right-turn-off lane. Queuing
and queue move up(s)will be then necessary for all vehicles before the right turning vehicles could enter the
right-turn-off lane and queue up again in order to complete a right turn(see Photo 7.1,APPENDIX 7).
1.4 SHIPYARD LANE AND MAIN ROAD INTERSECTION CAPACITY
In order to better understand the traffic conditions, a series of photographs is taken in sequence (see
APPENDIX 6, attached to this documentation)to show traffic delays. It can be expected that with the
increasing traffic capacity there are not only increasing traffic delays but also safety problems for pedestrians as
well (see Photos 7.2 and 7.3 APPENDIX 7). For example photo 7.2 shows a woman with a stroller attempting
to cross Shipyard Lane. She is standing next to the speed-limit sign.
15 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ON SHIPYARD LANE
There are no studies or evaluations made in reference to the traffic conditions on Shipyard Lane. It appears that
traffic considerations are made only for Shizen Hotel Wellness Center& Spa and not for the residents of this
area(see APPENDIX 7). For example,there are no provisions made for all the residents during these traffic
peak hours who are entering or exiting:
■ Private driveways on Shipyard Lane.
■ Marina Lane.
■ Gus Drive.
■ Private Road RD7 (Fire Road)
■ Cleaves Point Condominium complex.
These points, mentioned above, still do not include additional traffic concerns, such as:
■ Traffic generated by the residents of Shipyard Lane, Cleaves Point, Summit Estate and private Road
RD7 (Fire Road).
3
■ Ambulances, fire trucks, taxies, delivery trucks, etc. for the residents of this area.
■ Visitors of residents on Shipyard Lane as well as the visitors of residents using connecting roads or
attempting to reach the complexes of Cleaves Point or Summit Estate.
■ Scenic Site. There are no considerations made for the traffic generated by the East Marion and Southold
Township residents who are currently enjoying the scenic site at the end of Shipyard Lane with the view
of Gardiner Bay.
1.6 LOSE OF SCENING SITE
It is evident that, during these peak hours, all these traffic mentioned above will experience "traffic-difficulties".
In matter of fact,the rest of East Marion residents and residents of Southold Township, under these conditions,
will be virtually cut off from accessing the scenic site that is currently enjoyed at the end of Shipyard Lane with
the view of Gardiner Bay(see APPENDIX 6.0).
1.7 NOT MENTIONED/EXPLAINED TRAFFIC
There is nothing mentioned in the Shizen DEIS report about the use of Shizen Health Spa's outdoors
entertainment center and its impact on traffic conditions besides of potential noise pollution. If there are
such plans, then traffic increases, in case of organized outdoor entertainment activities by Shizen Hotel
Wellness Center& Spa, should be incorporated in the overall traffic evaluation. Furthermore, avoiding this
information study is even more distorting severe traffic problems for this area. It is absolutely necessary to
make appropriate evaluation in order to prevent completely unmanageable traffic conditions for this
community.
1.8 ACCIDENT REPORTS
There is a limited number of accidents as well now only because of"so-far"manageable traffic conditions (see
Shizen DEIS,page 138). However, with this proposed increase of traffic, and subsequently worsened traffic
conditions, increases of traffic accidents can be expected as well.
Deterioration of traffic manageability at the Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection will increase traffic
delays. According to the insurance industry,the drivers who are waiting in a heavy traffic because of delays will
be willing to make hasty and risky decisions that would lead to accidents (see APPENDIX 6.0).
2.0 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
2.1 DATA INACCURACY
In order to fully understand traffic conditions, it is important to view the entire traffic conditions in this area and
not only the Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection. However, lacking correct number of homes and more
accurate description of residencies along the Shipyard Lane; inaccurate and oversimplified traffic conditions at
the Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection; inaccurate description of shoulders width(s)on Main Road;
using old traffic data from 2004; overlooking the need for the emergency entry/exit for the Shipyard Lane
residents; suggesting traffic lights to remedy traffic problems without examining the entire traffic situation;
these are some of the symptoms, but not all,that are grossly oversimplifying and even distorting the actual
traffic conditions for this area(see Shizen DEIS,pages: 133-137, 220-238).
2.2 LONG ISLAND FERRY
4
The Long Island Sound ferry's projection is to provide increasing ferry services. Having plans of their own,
there suggested future proposal must be considered as well. For example, the statistics provided by the New
York State Department of Transportation, Traffic Volume Report, shows the estimated"Annual Average Daily
Traffic(AADT)" 10,520 vehicles per day in 2007. This estimated AADT traffic count represents measurements
on the Main Road(NYS Route 25), from County Road 48 to Narrow River Road. Furthermore this Traffic
Volume Report reveals historical AADT measurements for the same area as follows(vehicles per day): 10,030
in 2004; 7,440 in 2001; 4,950 in 1998. There are unmistakable steady traffic increases from 1998 until 2007.
These numbers suggest traffic increases on Route 48/Route 25. It is necessary to consider further available
traffic information and data, for example, between Youngs Avenue and SR 25 on Route 48. The NYSDOT
report, Local Traffic Volume Report, shows AADT 12,600 vehicles per day in 2005. This information cannot
be ignored in overall traffic evaluation and traffic planning for this area (see Map 4.1 in APPENDIX 4, attached
to this document).
2.3 INCREASE OF LOCAL POPULATION
The traffic studies and projections for Shizen Health Spa do not show increases of population in this area nor
anything is mentioned about new construction projects already developed along Route 48 and Route 25, which
are significant contributors to the already existing traffic. For example,there do exist new developments like
"Cliffside Resort Condominium" on Route 48 in Greenport.
The new Cliffside Resort Condominium complex on Route 48 in Greenport cannot be ignored but must be
taken into the consideration as an addition to the traffic projections for this area because of its resident's
capacity and its location on Route 48 (see Photo 3.1 in APPENDIX 3). For example, is there need for a traffic
light in order to allow left turns for the residents exiting this condominium complex? Installing a traffic light at
this location cannot be done without considering continuously increasing traffic on North Road(Route 48)and
Main Road (Route 25) respectively.
2.4 TRAFFIC LIGHT FOR SHIPYARD LANE AND MAIN ROAD INTERSECTION
It is evident that already existing traffic issues and concerns in this area are not filly resolved and a new huge-
traffic proposal is considered, like Shizen Health Spa. Therefore, proposing and installing traffic light at the
Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection cannot be viewed as a simple and quick remedy, as suggested by the
Shizen Health Spa project, without impacting the overall traffic on Route 48/Route 25 as well as impacting the
Cliffside Resort Condominiums intersection and the North Road and Main St intersection. In this type of
scenario, installing traffic light at the Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection might lead to installing traffic
lights at all subsequent intersections in order to achieve a synchronized traffic flow. However, traffic lights at
these intersections will be like bottle-stoppers at the narrow bottleneck of the North Fork of Long Island (see
Map 3.1 in APPENDIX 3 and APPENDIX 6.0 and APPENDIX 8.0).
All these traffic contributors represent a tremendous traffic increase at the narrow bottleneck of the North Fork
of Long Island. Therefore, these and other similar traffic questions should be resolved before additional heavy
traffic contributor like Shizen Health Spa can be considered for this already traffic growing area(see
APPENDIX 7.0).
5
3.0 Community Facilities and Services
3.1 FIRE PROTECTION AND AMBULACE SERVICE
The proposed access point on the east side of the site is onto Cleaves Point Road 3. Due to this newly created
heavy traffic on Main Road and Shipyard Lane, it appears that attention is only paid to the emergency traffic for
the safety of Shizen guests and staff(see Shizen DEIS,page 8). It is evident that the proposed entrance on the
east side of the site,which is onto Cleaves Point Road, is proposed with only this objective. However, there are
certainly no provisions made for the residents of Shipyard Lane as well as no provisions made for Cleaves Point
Condominium complex, Summit Estate complex and Private Rd 7 (Fire Road)residents. The residents at these
locations will be virtually cut off from emergency services because of the overwhelming traffic conditions on
Main Road(NYS Route 25)and the Shipyard Lane and Main Road (NYS 25) intersection(see above traffic
analysis and Map 1.1 in APPENDIX 1 attached to this documentation).
The Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection is the entrance and exit! There are no other escape routes in
case of emergency. In spite of these severe limitations,the proposed action will create a tremendous increase of
traffic for a narrow street and a very small area with one entrance and exit, the intersection of Shipyard Lane
and Main Road. This intersection is like a trap (see Map 1.1 APPENDIX I and APPENDIX 6.0). It is like a
large conference hall with a capacity for a larger audience but with one exit door!
In situations when minutes do count and a family member can drive a seriously ill person to the local hospital as
well as when there is need for the East Marion Fire and Rescue to respond in time, there is only one traffic-
congested entrance and exit intersection available to them. Because of these extreme limitations, the traffic
conditions will be preventing all concerned from getting any help on time. Under these conditions,the residents
of Shipyard Lane, Summit Estate complex, Cleaves Point Condominium complex and Private RD7 (Fire Road)
are virtually cut off from any emergency help.
This proposed traffic will have even further negative consequences that will be functioning like bottle stoppers
at the narrow bottleneck of the North Fork of Long Island. In the case of a larger emergency situation, whether
fire or weather,the East Marion and Orient residents will be entrapped and prevented from the use of vital
escape routes, Route 48/Route 25.
3.2 EAST MARION FIRE DEPARTMENT
The East Marion Fire Department provides excellent services to the East Marion community. They are
recognized for their dedicated work and service.
However, the East Marion Fire Department's offered services to the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center& Spa were
based on information available to them in 2004 (see Shizen DEIS, page 139). Because the Shizen DEIS report,
with the traffic information available in Sep 2008 and with the full scope of the proposed project is emerging
now, in 2008, it is the Shizen Health Spa's responsibility to provide the latest information to the East Marion
Fire Department and the opportunity must be given to them to review the latest traffic conditions in this area. In
cooperation with the Planning Board Department, Highway Department and the East Marion community, there
3 The statement made by the Shizen DEIS report states,"M access point is also proposed on the east side of the site onto Cleaves Point Road.One
lane would be provided for entering traffic and another for exiting traffic.However,this proposed access point would be restricted for the use by
emergency vehicles and personnel for the Shizen guests and staff.The proposed entrance is not to be used under normal circumstances."
6
I i
is need for making new assessments because of the new increasing traffic changes in this area. The final
decision can be made by the East Marion Fire Department more accurately when all traffic data are available
and traffic issues are resolved as well as all latest and necessary information is available to all concerned.
4.0 PURPOSE, NEED, AND BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Creating new jobs or generating tax revenues are certainly benefits for the Town of Southold(see Shizen DEIS,
page 5). However, it is also important to understand the generated expenses to the Town of Southold because of
this proposed action. The promising statements (see Shizen DEIS, page 5) are perhaps too generalized in their
explanations without providing clear answers to the suggested benefits.
4.1 TAX REVENUES
In order to fully understand the benefits of"TAX REVENUES", it is necessary to conduct at least very
simplified"Cost-Benefit-Analysis". A simplified evaluation can indicate the benefits of the proposed action and
the expenses paid by the township because of this proposed action.
For example:
■ Cost for processing and evaluation of submitted/proposed documentation(s) by Shizen Hotel Wellness
Center& Spa
■ Road modification and maintenance
■ Sufficient housing for new low income families because of new low paid employment and newly
arriving families(see below, 4.2 JOBS)
■ Cost for new students in local schools
■ Lose of tax revenue. The existing businesses, such as "Bed &Breakfast", might not be able to compete
because of traffic increase and the overpowering nature of Shizen project. It can be anticipated that
small businesses will be forced out of business or their revenues might be significantly declined. The
collective but significant tax revenues, currently benefited by the town of Southold, will be lost under
these circumstances. The amount lost, currently generated by the"Bed& Breakfast"type of businesses,
might represent more than the amount generated by the proposed action.
■ The community character will be changed, subsequently,affecting different currently established
businesses. For example, shops and stands along Route 48 and Route 25.
Understanding "benefits and costs" are prudent and responsible approaches to the promising tax revenues.
4.2 JOBS
According to the proposed action(see Shizen DEIS, page 5): "It is also estimated that the proposed
development would generate 200 jobs. The types of jobs offered would include administrative, sales and
marketing, accounting, clerical, property maintenance and food service."
However, except for this very generalized statement, there is nothing mentioned about the quality and levels of
jobs that are proposed. For example, are these mainly well-paid jobs that require higher education and offer
significant salaries with benefits or are these predominantly low scale jobs at minimum salary levels and
virtually no benefits? Understanding the balance of these job position levels will offer a picture of economic
benefit for the local economy because well-paid employees represent economic benefit for the local economy
with their purchasing power. On the other hand, low paid jobs, at the minimum salary level, will create more
dependents on the Town's various benefit programs and thus become additional taxpayers' expenses (for
example, more demands on low income housing subsidized by the township).
7
• •
Perhaps more defined answers are needed to these questions. For example, what is the total number of hired job
positions, working on site? Where are the offices located for the proposed job positions, such as, sales,
marketing, accounting and bookkeeping services; or are these job positions subcontracted to outside offices, for
example, in Manhattan.
The suggested vannooling (see Shizen DEIS,page 222) is offering impression that most of these jobs are
created for"bused-in" employees. It appears that these job positions are not aimed for the local population.
On the other hand--if it is not so--will they seek local housing benefits?
Understanding this generalized statement,that suggests 200 jobs, is essential in order to make more accurate
"cost-benefit-projections" for the Southold Township.
5.0 DENIAL OF QUALITY OF LIFE
It is evident that the proposed action favors quality of life with the fresh air of waterfront for their guests while
the northwesterly neighboring residents are exposed to the proximity of human waste disposal facility, garbage
disposal facility, electrical generator and a large parking lot with its auto-generated exhaust finnes. All of these
undesirable options are proposed besides the traffic, lack of accessibility to the scenic waterfront and expenses
to the taxpayers.
The northwest comer of the property proposes the concentration of all undesirable facilities, whether trash
receptacles attracting rats and vermin; or waste-treatment facility releasing excessive gasses and odor; or
continuously humming generator. Precautions are taken to keep them at safe distance from their guests' living
quarters; instead they are offered and placed under the windows of the northwesterly neighboring residents.
The proposed action is offering to its northwesterly neighbors fresh waterfront air-currents, filtered through
collection of undesirable facilities. In complete disregard for the health and quality of life of the residents,the
given impression is, "health and well being for our guest at the expense and sacrifice of neighbors."
Rats are serious threat in this environment. According to the Shizen DEIS report,page 205, and in reference to
rats and mice, there is a statement: "...usually cause problems for homeowners. Populations of these species are
likely to increase as a result of the project."
According to the "Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program", sponsored by University of California,
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, rats not only cause damage to structures and invade homes
but also spread diseases and in the yard and outside can also present tremendous risk,particularly since those
areas are visited by children and pets (see APPENDIX 5 attached to this documentation).
The proposed action is creating environment not fit for human inhabitation, and especially for children, who
should be living in this type of surroundings. It is inconceivable that children should live under these conditions.
We all are living in the United States of America and not in some 3rd world country!
8
6.0 ENVIRONMENT
The New York Natural Heritage Program("NYNHP") can provide information that is only available to them. If
no studies nor input data, concerning a site, are provided to them, they can only suggest what potential species
might be found on any site in East Marion and surrounding area for that matter(see Page 96, Shizen DEIS
report). Therefore,the NYNHP respond, in this case, can be only considered as their recommended suggestion
but not a decision resolving the environmental issues in this area.
The generalized statement, "The numerous field inspections conducted between 2004 and 2007 did not identify
any of the above protected native species," cannot explain nor justify presence or absence of any species,
whether plants,animals or marine life. Subsequently only a properly conducted field research and
investigation of this site can determine the presence or absence of concerned species. However, based on
information provided by the Shizen DEIS report, it evident that there was no such undertaking on this site and
its vicinity. The generalized statement, concerning the field inspections, suggest very generalized evaluation of
this site that is lacking properly document evidence of how this field research was conducted in order to
determine the presence or absence of concerned species. There is nothing specific, for example:
■ Specific time of year when field research was conducted; for example, whether in spring, summer, fall
or winter.
■ Duration of each visit and objective of each visit.
■ Documented method of monitoring, sampling, data collecting, etc.
■ Who conducted this field research
■ Conclusive documentation explaining this specific research.
The overall provided information, in reference to the environmental issues and concerns, could be summed up
as follows:
It is like reading pages form an encyclopedia that is describing what might be or might not be found on Long
Island. The overpowering amount of information on this subject is in reality, under these circumstances, a
meaningless environmental evaluation. Unless a proper and complete research is conducted on this site and its
vicinity, it can be concluded that there is no substantiated environmental evaluation concerning plants, animals,
or marine life. The absence of it is alarming.
7.0 WETLANDS AND BASIN/CANAL DREDGING
The suggested basin dredging (see Shizen DEIS report,page 52) does not fully explain the actual shoreline
conditions and the presence of"tidal wetlands" as well as its impact on this proposal. A basin, located on the
southern portion of the property, was originally connected to Gardiner's Bay. This basin was used by the former
oyster-factory to dock boats. However, a connecting canal is non-existent, it closed with time. The presence of
on and adjacent tidal wetlands is evident from the healing process of the shoreline and its natural process of
allowing the closing of the basin's connecting canal to Gardiner's Bay(see Photo 9.1, APPENDIX 9.0).
Dredging this basin and connecting canal will represent disrupting this natural process so characteristic to the
tidal wetlands. Furthermore, in case of dredging, the destruction of marine life along the southern portion of
property and in its vicinity becomes unavoidable.
9
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
There are no objections to any business enterprise as long as the quality of life is shared with the community
and not at the expense of the residents. However, it is apparent from the specification of the Shizen DEIS report
that the proposed action is only beneficial to this business enterprise.
Considering the amount if information, presented by this Shizen DEIS report, it is too generalized and
somewhat oversimplified when comes to the community's concerns and issues. Summary of some of the
concerns and issues are listed as follows:
■ Worse traffic conditions (see 2.0 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
■ Endangering public safety(see 3.1 FIRE PROTECTION AND AMBULANCE SERVICES and
TRANSPORTATION)
■ Denial quality of life (see 5.0 DENIAL QUALITY OF LIFE)
■ Lose of tax revenues for other businesses(see 4.1 TAX REVENUES)
■ Display of carrots(see 4.2 JOBS)
■ Environmental concerns (6.0 ENVIRONMENT)
■ Disruption of shoreline (7.0 WETLANDS AND BASIN/CANAL DREDGING)
There are other not mentioned and not answered questions. For example,plans for the use of the outdoor
entertainment center. In view of its proposed existence, it appears as one of the entertainment centers
performing perhaps various concerts? If it is so, then its impact on traffic should be incorporated in the overall
traffic projection for this area as well as there should be offered prevention plan against potential noise
pollution.
Under these conditions, in spite of its promises, this proposed enterprise is detrimental to the quality of life for
the entire community.
10
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 1
:.y
r
Or
r• L y v� ,. ��.
�•y- +.vF spling F
r
1
fits'i� i•rl
•1 fi ti�
r1
•qr ��
r
Pend, s
n
i Y x
I -
r 5 2
A :,k
Map 1.1
Shipyard Lane, East Marion
The Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection is "the entry and exit' point for the residents
of:
■ Over 30 private homes on Shipyard Lane
■ Cleaves Point Condominium complex
■ Summit Estate complex
■ Private Rd7 (Fire Road)
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 2.
Intersection and Left Turn
In order to understand the amount of time necessary to complete a left turn, it is necessary to include the
importance of a stop sign. In addition, there are required a number of tasks/step before a left turn is made
through an intersection. Deceleration, queuing and stopping; queue move-up which includes moving and
stopping; when finally a vehicle takes the first position at a stop sign, it must stop again and"yield the-right-of-
way to vehicles and pedestrians to or approaching the intersection". Go when it is safe(see Figure 2.1 and
"STOP Sign Definition" below).
According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, there is about 10 sec for the first left turning vehicle and 10.1
- 15.0 for the subsequent vehicle behind the first one. The seconds per vehicle are then increasing for each
following vehicles (< 10.0; 10.1 — 15.0; 15.1 —25.0;...). These numbers represent the amount of time necessary
to satisfy all steps in order to satisfy traffic regulations before making a left turn. However, these data numbers
are based on ideal conditions; for example, there is no traffic on the main road.
F Main Road(NYS Route 25)
T
STOP Shipyard Lane
Fily
n
F2]
4]
Figure 2.1
STOP Sign Definition
Driver's Manual,New York State Department of Motor Vehicles,page 42, states the following:
Come to a full stop, yield the-right-of-way to vehicles and pedestrians to or approaching the intersection. Go
when it is safe. You must stop before entering the crosswalk.
If there is no stop line or crosswalk, you must stop before entering the intersection, at the point nearest the
intersection that gives you a view of traffic on the intersection roadway.
APPENDIX 3
I I
APPENDIX 3
The enclosed photographs were photographed during early morning hours on November 6t'2008 in order to
show road conditions with minimal traffic as well as prevent endangering photographer's safety at this
dangerous location. .
y
Photo 3.1 -- Cliffside Resort Condominiums, Greenport,NY 11944
M
�1
Photo 3.2 -- Cliffside Resort Condominiums, Greenport,NY 11944
25
a
Island Z
End Golf `q`,E➢
So e, m shi fir
Long Leland
a
,oa } Southold {moi
Stirling• ,
4
El
f$ss�A+s
Inlet
Pond N o
County �• i a
Park 11P
� w
Solo St
a
� Q
R ¢tom;5; & Grp
K x
Map 3.1
Red"Xs" from left to right indicate the key intersections:
■ Cliffside Resort Condominiums(North Road), Greenport
■ North Road and Main St, Greenport
■ Shipyard Lane and Main Road, East Marion
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 4
� x
0
Lar,;trtana
Orient
at�
�'de
�o
island g 15 t+fb
End k
tir�If ��
sgq�
o�
m � o
F*�^t BL �tlireenport
s
4 m
Uerin9 m
u Harbor o
e
AS Arshamonaquea
SownlvR'r A 9®-� q, I n
09S$h,
Shelter IsI ld e
25 SeHe� 7 _ N�
pd o. �Y. j d'n 14L9nd lir
M
a ^, �'.. `�
,
`.F '9iand LT i
. Rd� �$y
a
$ � �2 Shelter [.z '.,.
Sms- W 50 � is Island o
.._ �'/.�CY 110
e. �,,.. EBtQee �R SRW - leek Gp
Map 4.1
Red "Xs" from left to right indicate the key intersections and traffic points:
■ Youngs Ave. and Middle Road
■ Cliffside Resort Condominiums (North Road)
■ North Road and Main St, Greenport
■ Shipyard Lane and Main Road
■ Narrow River Road and Main Road, Orient
Traffic Volume
The NYSDOT report, Local Traffic Volume Report, shows AADT 12,600 vehicles per day in 2005 from
Youngs Avenue to SR 25 on Route 48 as well as 10,520 vehicles per day in 2007 from County Road 48 to
Narrow River Road on Main Road(NYS Route 25).
The NYSDOT report on Main Road(NYS Route 25), from County Road 48 to Narrow River Road, further
reveals 10,030 vehicles per day in 2004; 7,440 vehicles per day in 2001; and 4,950 vehicles per day in 1998.
The NYSDOT report clearly shows steady traffic increases from 1998 until 2007.
Traffic lights at these intersections will be like bottle-stoppers at the narrow bottleneck of the North Fork of
Long Island.
APPENDIX 5
APPENDIX 5
RATS
According to the"Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program", sponsored by University of California,
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, "rats are some of the most troublesome and damaging
rodents in the United States."
When searching for food and water,rats usually travel an area of about 300 feet from their burrows or nests.
Rats consume and contaminate food, damage structures and property, and transmit parasites and diseases to
other animals and humans. Among the diseases rats may transmit to humans or livestock are murine typhus,
leptospirosis,trichinosis, salmonellosis (food poisoning), and ratbite fever. Plague is a disease that can be
carried by rats as well.
Rats in the yard and outside can also present tremendous risk,particularly since those areas are visited by
children and pets. They can also significantly undermine hill sides, retaining walls and other similar structures
through their burrowing activity. Once rats have invaded your garden or landscaping, it is only a matter of time
before you find evidence of them indoors.
Besides the health threat, any rat problem inside the home should be treated immediately because they can
cause significant damage to wiring and have even been known to chew through floor joists and walls. They can
also cause damage to home insulations.
i
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 6.0
The following sequence of pictures, photographed at the Shipyard Lane and Main Road intersection on
November 8a'2008 between 2:OOPM and 3:OOPM, depicts a sequence of events before an automobile can make
a left turn from Shipyard Lane and Main Road. It is evident that as the number of vehicles are increasing so is
increasing the delay period for the waiting first automobile to make a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main
Road.
It is evident from the following examples that suggested 7.2 seconds for the first vehicle and 3.5 seconds for the
following vehicles making a left turn are grossly underestimated numbers that are provided by Shizen DEIS
report. Their oversimplified numbers are giving completely distorted views on traffic conditions in this area.
Photo 6.1
Blue automobile is attempting to make a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road(Route 25).
There are three automobiles on Main Road. Pickup is continuing in the southwest direction while two more
automobiles are queuing up in their attempt to make a left turn from Main Road (Routine 25)to Shipyard Lane.
Photo 6.2
The blue vehicle on Shipyard Lane as well as both vehicles on Main Road, that are waiting for their left turns,
must yield-the-right-way to the vehicle on Main Road traveling in the north-east direction.
Photos 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6
Both vehicles on Main Road can finally make their left turn from Main Road to Shipyard Lane and the blue
automobile is still waiting for the opportunity to make a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road.
Photos 6.7, 6.8, 6.9
The vehicles that completed left turn from Main Road to Shipyard Lane can be noticed as they are continuing
on Shipyard Lane. More vehicles arrived in meanwhile Main Road that are making a left turn from Main Road
to Shipyard Lane but the blue automobile is still waiting for the opportunity to make a left turn from Shipyard
Lane to Main Road.
Photos 6.91, 6.92, 6.93
The blue vehicle on Shipyard Lane must still yield-the-right-way to all vehicles on Main Road. The blue
automobile is still waiting for the opportunity to make a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road.
Photos 6.94, 6.95, 6.96
The blue vehicle on Shipyard Lane can finally make a left turn from Shipyard Lane to Main Road.
kik .
Photo 1 Photo \
Photo \ Photo \
t�
Photo 1 Photo '
AA
Photo 1.' •.' Photo 1 1
Photo 6.9Photo 1 ,
Photo 1 1' Photo 6.95
y
Y
. y
� i►rn
Photo 1 11 1
APPENDIX 7
APPENDLX 7.0
The following photos show Shipyard Lane at the intersection of Shipyard Lane and Main Road(Route 25)
j y
MEW
P" 1
c
f.
Photo
11/08/8 between l:OOPM and 2:00PNI
I �
f r �
1
Photo 7.2
1 : . 11 ' . il '
� r f
Photo
,
1 : 11 ' 11 '
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8.0
The following sequence of pictures,photographed at the Main Street and Route 48/Route 25 intersection on
November 9 2008 between 9:OOAM and 10:00AM,typifies a sequence of events and waiting before an
automobile can make a left tum from Main Street to Route 48. The white automobile,on the left side of all
pictures, is a vehicle waiting for a left turn from Main Street to Route 48. It is evident that as the number of
vehicles on Route 48/Route 25 is increasing so will be increasing the delay period for the waiting first
automobile making a left tum from Main Street to Route 48. The importance of these photos is to show the
impact of traffic increase and its impact at the critical intersections on Route 48 and Route 25 respectively.
r
Photo 8.1 ...
Photo 8.2
v ,
- Photo 8.i
9,
.y a
F -
Photo 8.4
r
Photo 8.5
y
y
w' n
. . • — . _ � � � .
/ Photo 8.8
\ Photo 8.9 � . .
APPENDIX 9
1 R
APPENDIX 9.0
4
Photo 9.1
September 2006
What used to an open canal, used by the former oyster factory,was connecting inland
basin with Gardiner's Bay. The shoreline healing process closed this canal with time.
• • P
Cleaves Point Condominiums
CPC 2820 Shipyard Lane
East Marion, N.Y. 11939
PH./FAX 631-477-8657
cleavespoint(goptonline.net
November 8, 2008
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair �•: — �,.
Planning Board
Town Of Southold
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold New York 11971
Dear Ms. Woodhouse:
We have multiple concerns about the DEIS subrnht to-the Planning Board by the developers of
the Oyster Farm property in East Marion The DEIS is woefully incomplete in many ways. It
fails to address both the letter and the spirit of the issues that were raised in the scoping
document adopted by the Planning Board.
In this letter to the Planning Board we will focus on only two of the many areas where the DEIS
is incomplete and inadequate. These areas are 1) Noise Impacts and 2) Traffic Impacts.
1) Shizen Hotel Wellness Center& Spa Noise Impacts
Adverse noise impacts on the health and wellbeing of neighbors of the Shizen development are
of great concern. Levels and harmful effects of noise pollution from the complex is not dealt
with at all by the developers in the DEIS.
The word "noise" is derived from the Latin word "nausea". People and businesses that disregard
the obligation not to interfere with others' use and enjoyment of their property by producing
noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully. They disregard the rights of others and
claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.
Regardless of the stated intentions of the developers not to adversely impact their neighbors, a
valid fear that we have is that either the developers or subsequent owners/tenants of the property
may seek to reverse financial losses by expanding operations to include activities that will
negatively impact the neighborhood. Amplified or non-amplified noise at any level or of any
kind is not wanted by any neighbor. The live music mentioned in the Shizen feasibility study is
0
unacceptable at any time and under any conditions. It is extremely unlikely that noise pollution
will be correctly dealt with if this development is approved without enforceable restrictions on
planned or potential noise generating uses of the site.
The developers' DEIS totally avoids addressing concerns about this topic despite being asked to
do so in the scoping document. Section 5.0 of scoping document requires that the DEIS address
"uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intensity of use,
whether the site will be open to special events such as weddings, conferences, or catering events,
retail sales". Amazingly, the DEIS makes no mention of weddings or any meaningful mention
of conferences. The only mention of catering in the DEIS is buried in the developers' threat that
alternative uses include "a ferry terminal with a restaurant/catering facility ..."
Similarly, the scoping document asks that the DEIS "indicate activities such as outdoor parties,
placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or special events including frequency, location time
periods and schedule". The DEIS totally ignores this request. There is no mention at all of
parties, loudspeakers, concerts or special events. The only possible reference in the DEIS is the
statement that"according to the applicant there would be no outdoor events that would have a
noise impact on the neighborhood". Asking the residents of East Marion to trust the developers
in this regard is bizarre to say the least. The Planning Board would be negligent if it fails to limit
the scope of use of the proposed development to prevent adverse noise impacts.
2) Shizen Hotel Wellness Center& Spa Traffic Impacts
Adverse traffic impacts of this proposed development are a major concern for everyone who
lives and works near, or travels on, Shipyard Lane, on NYS Route 25, or on any of the
intersecting roads to NYS Route 25. As the Planning Board is aware, traffic is already a major
problem in the summer, on particular days, and especially at particular times of the day along
these roads. When the Cross Sound Ferry discharges its traffic onto NYS Route 25, there
already exist lengthy delays turning west from intersecting roads onto the highway. Any
increase in traffic, especially to the level caused by the proposed Shizen development will
seriously decrease the safety of all travelers on these roads.
The initial submission of the DEIS did not contain Appendix I, the Traffic Impact Study
prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates. This critical study was labeled "not submitted" in the
DEIS. We understand that the Dunn report was subsequently submitted weeks later. But we
cannot understand how the developers could have expected the Planning Board to accept the
DEIS and deem it complete without this report in hand from the very start! The whole process
from the developers has been shabby and inadequate.
To the layperson's reading of the traffic sections of the DEIS, there is considerable mixing of
data from both the NYS Department of Transportation and from the developers' consultant,
Dunn Engineering Associates. It is very difficult to identify the sources for data on traffic
volume and turning count information. By not clearly indentifying the data sources or conditions
in the Dunn Engineering portion of the DEIS, it is not clear what the information proves under
different times of day, different days of the week, or even different seasons of the year. The
DEIS should be transparent to the non-expert reader about what the worst case scenario for
residents or visitors is projected to be at the busiest time of the day for the busiest summer day.
As neighbors to the proposed development, the Cleaves Point community previously
commissioned our own traffic study of the initial Oki-do Gaia Holistic proposal. This was done
by the respected firm of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and was previously submitted to the Town for
your review. The Greenman-Pedersen study identified numerous flaws in the original Dunn
Engineering study. We urge the Planning Board to not accept any claims about traffic made on
the developers' behalf without independent corroboration.
The DEIS should be deemed incomplete without full information being presented in a format
that is transparent to everyone. We request that the Planning Board send the DEIS back to the
developers with the mandate to collect complete traffic information next summer(2009) on the
full effects that the Shizen development will have on the community. It should be required that
the developers' consultants gather critical traffic information at the busiest time/day of the week
next summer to include a representative peak time when the Cross Sound Ferry is discharging its
vehicles.
The DEIS is inadequate and incomplete in many other categories that are not detailed in this
letter. We know that other concerned people are communicating with you about additional
major deficiencies in the DEIS. We are totally supportive of our fellow citizens in their efforts to
bring these additional deficiencies to your attention.
Everyone at Cleaves Point recognizes that the current status of the Oyster Farm property has to
change. However we also recognize that there are much better uses for the Oyster Farm site than
that proposed by the Shizen developers. We look forward to seeing the Town explore all proper
uses of this unique property now and in the future.
Yours truly,
Peter Kenny, Vice-President
On behalf of the Board of Directors, Cleaves Club and Marina
S� M1
P1N' /5''`\} Post Office Box 569
2442 Main Street
S Bridgehampton,NY 11932-0569-ti P
Tel:631.537.1400
F O R T H E EAST END Fax:631.537.2201
www.gaWortheeastencl.org
November 4, 2008
Chairwoman Jeri Woodhouse
&Members of the Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
President Southold, NY 11971
Robert S. DeLuca
Chairman
William S. McChesney,Jr. Re: Proposed Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa
(SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1)
Vice Chairman
Ann Coney Dear Chairwoman Woodhouse&Members of the Board,
Board Members
Harris A. Barer On behalf of Group for the East End,we would like to respectfully submit
W.Marco Birch comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for
Mark Burchill
it Bryan the proposed Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa.
Mark Burchill P P P
Claudia Camozzi
Andrew Goldstein For the record,Group for the East End is eastern Long Island's largest
Richard D. Kahn
Ronald S. Lauder professionally staffed environmental advocacy and education organization.
Sandra R. Meyer Since 1972,we have represented the conservation and community planning
Christopher Pia interests of some 3,000 member-households, businesses and individuals
Peter Schellbach from across the five East End towns.
John Shea
Alan Siegel
Ellen Sosnow Although we recognize that the DEIS has not been deemed complete by the
Jahn C. Waddell lead agency (SEQRA Section 617.9 (a)(2)) our review of the document and
Mary walker comparison to the Final Scope (November 6, 2006) has lead us to recognize
Advisory Committee that although there are a number of issues to address there are two of
Mrs.James H. French particular concern.
Edward Gorman
Sherrye Henry
Arnold Leo The first relates to the organization of the document and the information
Peter Matthiessen presented. In short, it is difficult to determine what project is being
Muriel o. Murphy proposed.Although the document addresses the"proposed action," it
Lionel SargentPincus
John ent seems that the"preferred alternative" is given more detail in the
James Trees Appendix 0 and is also referenced in the Executive Summary as the
Harold M. wit action that is being proposed. If the preferred alternative is intended to be
the proposed action,then the level of detail needed to assess the potential
adverse environmental impacts of the"preferred alternative" needs to be
substantially elaborated upon.
FIGHTING FOR THE QUALITY OF YOUR LIFE
,o n,« 13,m F,N
GU*='
FOR THE EAST END
Second,we strongly believe that an in-depth examination of the Mll Zoning
classification in comparison to what is being proposed needs to take place before the
Zoning Board of Appeals. In an effort to understand permissible uses and zoning
regulations relating to the "Transient hotel/ motel" use vs. the"Resort hotel/motel" use
found within the Town Code, Group for the East End consulted our legal counsel. We will
be submitting a letter from our counsel shortly.
However,based on our review, it appears that the proposed action and all of its related
uses would fit into the definition of"Resort Hotel/Motel,'which is not permitted in the Mll
Zone. At a minimum the application should be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for an interpretation.
In addition to the above stated concerns we raise the following points as general areas that
require additional information to fully understand the potential impact of the proposed
project. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of findings. Please see the attached
document for specific page numbers and sections within the DEIS that support the
conclusions below.
• The DEIS lacks sufficient detail with regards to water usage. The total proposed
water usage for the site is 14,876 gallons per day. However, the proposed flow does
not include a number of proposed uses such as spa, office and personnel facilities.
Due to the number of uses omitted from the proposed maximum Flow, it can be
assumed that the water required to operate the facility as proposed is considerably
higher than what a 15,000 gallons per day Cromaglass system can accommodate.
• The DEIS lacks sufficient detail regarding all of the manmade water features
proposed for the site including the pool,6 Onsen pools noted on the Mezzanine level
of the largest building, 2 rooftop Onsen and a number of the reflecting pools
scattered about the site. These features will likely need to be maintained and
treated. We are specifically concerned with how these water features will impact
ground and surface waters.
• The DEIS is absent of many of the drawings or floor plans depicting the
proposed uses within each of the large buildings including the maintenance
building,pool house and private cafeteria/meeting hall. Conflicting documentation
is present within the DEIS and the Feasibility Study. Of particular concern is the
absence of information regarding the proposed "sub-grade" parking scheme
described within the Preferred Alternative. Drawings and descriptions are needed
to truly examine potential impact in addition to examining whether the proposed
use is in fact permissible within the Mil zoning category.
50 Pon GI ,,,/ (1,.Gamboa I'Ib.n
GR�N
FORTHE EAST END
• The DEIS provides conflicting information regarding the project's intentions
relating to LEED certification. The design details and certification has not been
formally described and in many parts of the document conflicting details regarding
an actual certification or whether certain components of LEED standards will be
utilized is presented.
• The Alternative section of the DEIS disregarded the anticipated alternatives as
outlined in the Final Scope (November 6, 2006). Appropriate alternatives to the
proposed project have not been included. According to SEQRA 617.9(b)(5 v.)
included in an impact statement should be"a description and evaluation of the
range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible,considering the
objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor."
Additionally,"the range of alternatives may also include,as appropriate,alternative:
sites.... scale or magnitude...and design. The applicant has failed to provide such. It
appears,aside from the No Action alternative that the alternatives were crafted in
such a way as to convey an unrealistic, negative illustration of alternative uses,uses
that would potentially create significantly more impact than that of the proposed
action.
In conclusion,we believe that the document should be deemed incomplete. Not only is an
abundance of information missing or not addressed but many sections provide
contradictory statements and findings. In order for the public to most effectively
participate in the State's environmental review process it is necessary that the applicant
provide a document that is forthcoming,well-organized and sufficiently addresses the Final
Scope.
Thank you for reviewing this matter. If you have any questions or comments please feel
free to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at (631) 765-6450 ext. 213 or at
bdelucaCtieastendenvironment.org.
Sincerely,
lf � .<C
Robert S. Deluca
President
Cc: Heather Lanza, Director of Planning
1O PortC ern ..er/..0 6amhnn Pibec
G1 1� •
R ' LJ�'
FORTHF EAST END
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Group for the East End Review
Page and Section Numbers
Details of Proposed Uses
Generally,there is sufficient lack of detail regarding the proposed buildings and their
usage.
For instance,absent is a site drawing indicating the uses proposed for the larger"private
dining hall/cafeteria building" in the center of the parcel. On page 4 of the Shizen Hotel
Wellness Center&Spa Feasibility Study, it states,"There is a central meeting hall designed in
traditional Japanese fashion with a long porch on another reflecting pond. In the middle of
the pond is a platform stage ...The meeting hall can be used as one very large space or split
into smaller spaces."
• The building ("d") on the site plan appears to be similar to the description detailed
within the Feasibility Study,however a description of use of a"meeting hall" is no
where to be found within the DEIS including on the surveys. Maps depicting the
floor plans of each of the larger buildings needs to be provided in the Appendix of
the DEIS.
On page i of the DEIS,it states, "... and a 1,373 square-foot pool-house with an indoor pool."
• Appendix D - Site Development Plans includes a proposed site drawing that does
not indicate a pool-house with an indoor pool. Additionally,Appendix 0 - Preferred
Alternative provides a drawing that depicts a pool inside the main spa building
however does not depict a 1,373 pool-house. What is actually being proposed in
regards to the pool and pool-house?
Cromaglass Wastewater Treatment System
On page 152 of the DEIS it states, "According to the Engineering Design Report prepared by
Naylor Engineering (see Appendix K), and summarized in Table 5 below, the estimated
sanitary flow from the proposed development is 14,876 gallons or 3,649 gallons per day
greater than the maximum permissible flow..." However,the Naylor report,on page 14 of
42 notes a flow of 14,996 gallons per day. 4 seats were subtracted (76-72) from the
current proposed site plan that reflected the drop in gallons per day.
• It is essential to note that the proposed flow is extremely close to the maximum
allowable flow and that with the addition of a table for four at either of the
;0 ,Post Comumed5o'v:Bamboo hlhec
G
Rb
FOR THE EAST END
proposed restaurants the flow would be just four gallons below the maximum
allowed.
To further draw attention to the flow generations, page 36 of the Shizen Hotel Wellness
Center&Spa Feasibility Study, states that, "Personnel facilities will be located on-site in a
to-be-determined location. This will include male and female locker rooms with showers
and changing areas,bathrooms and a common break area. The break area may or may not
be part of an extension of an employee dining facility. This facility will have a
heated/chilled buffet counter, seating for approximately 40 and soft drink beverage service
equipment"
• The"Projected Sewage Flow Generation" (Table 5 - page 152) does not allocate flow
for the above personnel facilities. Due to the proposed flow nearly at the maximum,
adding more flow would obviously generate flow that would be above the allowed
maximum. This issue needs to be addressed.
• The "Projected Sewage Flow Generation" (Table 5 - page 152 of the DEIS) does not
allocate flow for"office use," and more importantly, "spa/fitness center"as
described within Standards forApproval of Plans and Construction for Sewage
Disposal Systems for Other Than Single-Family Residences (July 15, 2008) by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Division of Environmental Quality.
On page 155 of the DEIS, it states,in reference to the mechanical building,"The control area
of the mechanical building would house a control room, full laboratory facility, and
toilet/washroom facilities."
• The "Projected Sewage Flow Generation" (Table 5 - page 152 of the DEIS) does
not allocate flow for the above-described uses. This issue needs to be addressed.
Water Supply
On page 155 of the DEIS it states, "The proposed development is estimated to use 14,876
gallons of potable water per day. It is noteworthy that the project sponsor is proposing to
contract with a private laundry service such that no additional water would be used for the
same. Also, on-site irrigation would be provided by the proposed on-site pond."
• Although the applicant has stated that additional water supply will not be utilized
for laundry purposes, if in fact laundry services where to be utilized onsite,how
many gallons of water would be used on a daily basis to service the facility's laundry
needs?
+0": PosH'nncvnwy3U",.6mnbao Fibus
G R ' U�'
FOR THE EAST END
• The DEIS lacks detail with regard to the manmade pond/lake system in terms of
water quantity. How many gallons of water will be needed to fill this system? In the
event that the pond/lake system dries in a dry year how many gallons of water will
be needed for irrigation to service the property?
o Providing both of these figures within the DEIS will give the public abetter
understanding regarding the true amount of water that will be used to
service the facility.
On page 26 of the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa Feasibility Study it states, "An
important element of the "green concept" is related to the water. 99% of the water used
on-site as "gray water"will be treated,purified and reused for landscaping,laundry and
other purposes wherever possible."
• On page 155 of the DEIS, it states that laundry will be contracted out. This
discrepancy needs to be reconciled.
On page 12 of the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa Feasibility Study it states, "The
defining element of the spa is the inclusion of traditional Japanese hot-spring style baths
called Onsen. There are four of these baths on the second floor with beautiful vistas to the
outside and more outdoor Onsen on the roof-top with naturally formed stone pools..."
• Absent from the DEIS is a description of how the pool, "onsens," reflecting pool and
fountains are to be managed,filtered,maintained and if necessary drained. For
instance how many gallons of water will be needed to fill these features, how often
will they need to be drained,where will they be drained into,what chemicals will be
used for their maintenance?
• Additionally, Drawing No.Aa-1.2 notes 6 Onsen pools on the second floor,not 4 as
described within the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa Feasibility Study.
Page vi of the DEIS states that the, "depth to the water table at the subject property ranges
from 2.5 feet in the southeast to 14.7 feet in the northwest portion of the site." However on
page 25 of the DEIS it states that, "Groundwater was encountered at 1.07 feet amsl."
• Given the substantial amount of proposed mounding, number of leaching structures,
number of manmade water features it is imperative that a comprehensive
examination of the hydrology of the site be completed and further addressed within
the DEIS.
30".I—t<la.numcr;,0',.13—boo I9b,,
G
FORB6 H
EE EAST END
LEED
On page 212 of the DEIS, it states, "The proposed design has applied LEED building
standards since the earliest inception of the designs to optimize site usage and building
performance."
Additionally on page 214 of the DEIS it states, "...would incorporate LEED building
elements..."
• First, it is unclear whether LEED certification will be attained or will LEED
"elements"be utilized but not to the degree of a certification.
• Second, description and details are lacking regarding the list of LEED credits on
page 212-214. How will these be implemented,what agency is the applicant
working with? Documentation supporting this effort should be provided. Merely
providing a list of possible elements that can be copied and pasted from and
development application is unacceptable.
• Lastly,a number of the LEED credits listed on page 212-214, specifically the bulleted
items discussing impervious surface,wetlands, open space, and vegetation differ
drastically from what is being proposed and it is highly unconceivable how the
applicant would be permitted to seek these credits.
Traffic- Roadways- Parking
On page ii, it states that,"The northern most access would be designated as a service access
and is expected to be used infrequent." Additionally, on page xv it states,"The northern
most access driveway on Shipyard Lane would be designated as a service access and is
expected to be used infrequently. Trucks would be restricted from using the main gate. All
deliveries would be made at the maintenance building at the west side of the development
and adjacent to the parking lot. However, the number of deliveries would be limited to
three-to-six per day."
• How would the number of deliveries be enforced? Further,were these delivery
trucks calculated into the traffic study?
Page 213 of the DEIS states that in order to meet LEED standards, "alternative
transportation via van-pool for building occupants..."would be provided.
• How would this practice be enforced? From what locations would this van- pool
operate?
50°,Pos[Cmuumcr/So'°. bamboo Fiber
P
a .9 t,
East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625, East Marion, NY 11939
November 3, 2008 717,j T
Jerilyn B.Woodhouse, Chair
Planning Board,Town Of Southold
Southold Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold New York 11971 1 _
Dear Ms.Woodhouse: _ ... .. ......, _... _..... ... . ...
The old Oyster Farm, one of the few remaining beachfront properties on Orient Harbor, is
of great concent to the residents of East Marion. The East Marion Community Association
(EMCA) represents 535 East Marion residents who are committed to seeing the Oyster Farm
property utilized in a way that: has minimal negative impact on the quality of life of the resi-
dents of East Marion, protects the environment, respects the rural character of the hamlet,
preserves open space and, preserves and protects public access to the bay waters for East
Marion residents.
As soon as the DEIS for the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa was received by the Town
and made available to the public by the Planning Board, many of our EMCA members be-
came involved in reading the document and commenting on its completeness or incomplete-
ness. I am attaching the result of this community review process.
The document that accompanies this letter represents a significant demonstration of citizen
interest and effort. Since September 13, 2008 there have been over 350 downloads of the 900+
page document from www.emca.us, the East Marion Community Association website. Forty-
two community members attended an EMCA meeting devoted to reviewing the document
and many signed up to read and closely review various parts of the document for complete-
ness. Comments have been received from 14 community members. The enclosed document
is a compendium of this community review process of the DEIS against the Final Scope and
commenting on the completeness of the Shizen DEIS.
Our enclosed document follows the outline that the developer was directed to follow by the
Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document in the Final Scope (page 6). You will
find that our community members have identified significant omissions in the DEIS. We par-
ticularly call your attention to the following sections,which we find glaringly incomplete:
Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.4.2 Operation
3.1 Transportation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
4.2 Water Resources
Unfortunately, the organization of the Shizen DEIS does not conform consistently to the basic
outline for the Table of Contents as contained in 6NYCRR Part 6179(b) 93) and directed in the
continued on next page
continued from previous page
Final Scope. This failure to align the DEIS with the prescribed outline makes it unneces-
sarily difficult for a reader to determine the completeness of the DEIS document.When
this DEIS is sent back to the property owner for rewriting to address omissions, as we be-
lieve it should be, the property owner should be directed to resubmit it in a form that fol-
lows the prescribed outline. This project is of extreme interest to a broad base of citizens
in our community. This is a very detailed and complex project proposal. When citizens
have to look in multiple places in the document to determine whether required informa-
tion has been provided, it raises citizen suspicions that the preparers of the document
were attempting to obfuscate rather than be open and transparent.This is not helpful to a
productive review process.
The East Marion Community Association is committed to participating in the review and
decision making process regarding the Oyster Farm property. We understand that the
DEIS has not been deemed complete by the Lead Agency and we hope that the Planning
Board will consider our input as it goes about this process. Please call on us if there is any
way our organization can be of assistance to the Planning Board as it goes about its delib-
erations.
Sincerely,
Ruth Ann Bramson, President
East Marion Community Association
(631) 477-1619
ruthann@emca.com
cc: Heather Lanza
East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625, East Marion, NY 11939 ,
v
November 3, 2008
COMMENTS REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF SHIZEN DEIS
Prepared by the East Marion Community Association
Note: This document follows the outline in the Final Scope
prepared for the Town of Southold by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
• What is the status regarding the securing of the property per the December 4, 2007
letter to the property owner from the Town? On December 12, 2007 the Town Trustees
and NYDEC granted approval for the owner to undertake securing the property. Why
has this not been done?The site remains hazardous. (p. 4)
• Have enough widespread soil borings been conducted?
• Has water testing been done near the contaminated buildings?
• Has the soil surrounding the old buildings been contaminated with lead and asbestos?
If so how will it be removed?
• On or about Oct. 10, 2008, DEC is reported to have received information necessary to
process the permit that will allow remediation of hazardous violations issued by the Town
of Southold. DEC is presently analyzing and a decision on a permit will follow. The DEIS
promises safeguards of hazardous material in many places but no concrete safeguards
are mentioned.
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• It is stated on p.5 of the DEIS that the proposed action would result in an increased tax
levy of$166,563.99 and generate 200 new jobs. What proportion of those jobs would
be administration? Sales? Marketing? Clerical? Property maintenance? Food services?
Other services? How many of the jobs would go to people currently living in East Marion
or Southold Town?Insufficiently Addressed
• The Feasibility Study (Appendix C page 32) notes "it is fairly apparent that the major-
ity of staff will come from Riverhead and West." How was this determined? Page 33
fails to mention the employment of a certified plant engineer on site 24/7 to avoid any
malfunction of the sewage treatment plant, which could be disastrous to groundwater or
Gardiner's Bay. The study notes (page 36) "personnel facilities will be located in an as
yet to be determined location:'Not addressed in the document is the increased water
and square footage necessary for the locker room, bathroom and break area for the 100
employees proposed on site.
• How does this proposed project address the goals of Southold Town? Consistency
with the LWRP, State Coastal Zone Management Program, Peconic Estuary Program
(PEP), East Marion Stakeholders - not addressed. For example, the PEP's goals for
toxic areas are "improve the ambient environment" where there is evidence of toxins.
Who will monitor this high density site to achieve this goal?
• Population to be served. (This is only addressed in the Young feasibility study Appendix C.)
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page I of 10 pages
• Current mao study to assess need and viability of faVy (This is only addressed in
the Young feasibility study Appendix C - which is not current and possibly not feasible in
this economy.)
• Public access to the waterfront-not addressed. In fact, Figure 7, Proposed Habitats,
shows a red line representing a structure that would block public access to the shoreline.
• Potential for conversion of the site to another use based on non-viability of facility or
lack of need - not addressed.
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project sponsor
• Gaia Holistic Circle form of treatment/lifestyle to be described (This is only addressed
in the Young feasibility study Appendix C.)
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
• Benefits are addressed from the perspective of the developer, not the community, as
directed by the Scoping document. Insufficiently addressed.
• The only community benefits discussed are the espoused economic benefits. What are
the potential social benefits to the community? In what ways does the proposed project
enhance the historic character of the community? What are the environmental benefits?
How is this project going to enhance the quality of life of the people who live in East
Marion? (p.8) Insufficiently addressed..
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
• "Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, in terms of adjacent/
nearby significant properties, zoning and service districts, available services, etc." - not ad-
dressed. The size of other commercial enterprises in East Marion also should be included.
• "The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low water,
site survey, structures, vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background of existing
site conditions" Not addressed.
• "A summary of subsurface conditions and features, suspected contamination on the site and
in the area proposed for development, as well as remediation initiatives:' The Phase II Ex-
panded EAS/UST Closure Report by Long Shore Environmental Report (Appendix L) shows
leaching structures contaminated with copper and zinc. Still needed (as noted on page 38 of
DEIS) is a UST Closure Report in regard to analysis of STARS target compounds for the DEC.
• The adverse impact of bottom sediments within underground leaching structures would rep-
resent a violation of the USEPA UTC Program. See page 30 of DEIS.
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
• "Use/Design Description. Address breakdown of use areas from a structural stand-
point. Indicate if the patio will be covered. Describe any retail activities on site (sale
items, access to the public)" - not addressed. For example, there is no loading dock
shown in the DEIS.
• "Architecture. The architecture; height, and appearance of structures shall be identi-
fied" - not addressed.
• "LEED. Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project:'
Not addressed.
• "Regulations. ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compli-
ance as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements, design parameters
and proposed design, indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed"
—not addressed. For example, the base flood elevation with Zone AE as per the FEMA
map is 9 feet above mean sea level. This would place the height of the first floor at
10-feet or more. How would the 2-story building come under 35-feet in height? If a sub-
grade garage is used, how would it conform to FEMA regulations?
East Marian Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 2 of 10 pages
1.3.2 Grading and Onage •
• There is a diagram of a drainage plan in Appendix B, but there is no discussion of
storm water and erosion control or compliance with regulations as required. How will
excessive rain, storms and hurricanes affect the site?
• Is an annual inspection (p. 15 of DEIS) of drainage structures sufficient?
• How will pavement for 189 parking spaces and driveways affect grading and drainage?
1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking
• The DEIS Executive Summary states access driveways have been reduced from three
to two. In this section (p. 8) it says there are to be three access points on Shipyard Lane.
Which is it?
•There are no internal road system or traffic circulation indicators in Appendix B.
• Congestion and conditions on Shipyard Lane, the access road, are not addressed.
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water supply
• "Utilities. The sizes and locations of all utilities shall be described along with status of
future possible connection." - not addressed except for waste treatment system in Ap-
pendix K.
• Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
• The applicant proposed to mitigate the effects of the higher than allowed water usage
by installing a Cromaglass wastewater treatment system which would treat sewage on
site. The applicant claims that this system will be noiseless and odorless. We are not told,
however, how often the sludge which collects in these tanks would have to be pumped
out and what the effect of that pumping on the neighbors would be.
• Even more worrisome than the sludge pumping, however, is the fact that while the
Cromaglass system may alleviate some water quality concerns, it does absolutely noth-
ing to allay our fears about the quantity of water this proposed development would pump
in and discharge into a fragile and already nearly saturated area.'
• The Preliminary Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement requires
that the applicant address the "change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of
recharge under existing and future conditions" as well as "issues regarding increased
water table elevations" and "potential to increase flooding in the area" None of these
issues have been addressed and are of vital interest to us.
• In the last decade many of the vacant lots in Marion Manor have been developed. In-
herent in this residential development of single family homes has been the cutting down
of the second growth stands that were there even just six or seven years ago. These
wooded lots used to absorb a lot of rainwater and the trees prevented runoff. Now,
instead of wooded lots we have houses connected to SCWA water supply, and all of us
have experienced more basement flooding and increased street flooding.
• This has happened with just the addition of about 20 single family homes. What is
going to happen if a behemoth development cuts down almost every tree on the adjoin-
ing 18 acres, and then starts pumping in 15,000 gallons a day of water that the earth is
supposed to absorb?This is a recipe for disaster and there are no answers in this DEIS.
• The applicant proposes to move in great quantities of earth in order to bring the ground
level higher above the water table.Almost all existing vegetation with its deep root sys-
tem would be removed. "Hay bales" and "temporary plantings" are proposed as mitigating
measures. It would take years for the newly planted landscaping to develop a root system
strong enough to hold the soil in place. In the meantime, the roads, the neighbors and the
bay will be dealing with not only rising water tables but also increased silt runoff.
•One mitigation measure that the applicant proposes is in the preferred alternative plan — a
subsurface parking garage in order to minimize the paved surfaces on the property. How-
East Marion Community Association commentson the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 3 of 10 pages
ever, no wher�TS the DEIS is the feasibility of a parking Oge below the water table
discussed, nor the additional adverse impact that such a submerged structure might
have on the water table itself. Parking garages are not generally built below water level,
so obviously if this one is going to be built below the water line, precautions and special
measures must be necessary to prevent flooding. The applicant presents this measure
as if it were an everyday occurrence.
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
• Compliance with dark skies -not addressed.
1.3.6 Open Space
• "Amenities. Describe all amenities on site including outdoor use, tennis courts, arena,
playgrounds, use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities, etc" - not addressed.
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
• "Demolition of existing buildings and steps to protect neighborhood properties"— not
addressed.
• "Remediation based on Phase 1/1I ESA' -not addressed. For example, who will su-
pervise demolition and the correct disposal and remediation of contaminants and toxic
wastes on site?
• Construction schedule does not specify days of the week nor are Town code restric-
tions of nuisance activities and compliance addressed.
• Hours of operation -Noted in several places to be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. How will this be
regulated and enforced?
• Evaluation of protection of workers and worker safety during construction -not ad-
dressed.
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane - not addressed.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details - not addressed.
1.4.2 Operation
• There are 21 bullets in the Scope and NONE of those issues are addressed in the
DEIS summary.
• In the property description in the Scope document there is a description of"a large
man made pond, containing a landscaped island, several recreational bridges and
wooden decks" There is no mention of "floating stage" for theater, music and other en-
tertainment. This has been added in the DEIS, Shizen Feasibility Study page 4 and again
on page 15 the Shizen Feasibility Study mentions evening activities including music.
• Under the heading "Other Activities" section on page 21 it states, "In the center of the
pond is a floating theater that is the stage for performances ... in addition to the the-
ater, other entertainment will be brought in on a periodic basis and may perform in this
location." Further on the same page it states, "There will be entertainment every evening
including live music." Also on page 21 it states, "When not in use it [outdoor theater] is
simply a peaceful place to be" This gives the impression that it will not be a peaceful
place when used for entertainment. They also mention artists who perform at Shizen
will have their music CDs sold in the on premises retail store. (p. 22). The DEIS states
that the development is a"destination spa retreat" and, "the nature of this use would not
be expected to be a significant source of noise;' The DEIS further states, "according to
the applicant, there would be no outdoor events that would have a noise impact on the
neighborhood" East Marion residents have had lots of experience with outdoor music,
as is known and documented by many police reports of neighbor's complaints about the
Blue Dolphin where outdoor music and entertainment can be heard for up to one mile
from the source. In addition, live music from Claudio's can be heard all the way across
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 4 of 10 pages
the Bay to A Island. Outdoor entertainment emanatilf from the location of Shi-
zen Hotel Center will most likely be heard not only across the water to Shelter Island,
but within a one mile radius of the facility. This is most definitely a significant source of
noise.
• In the Executive Summary under Mitigation Measures the Noise section states, "as
no significant noise impacts would result, no mitigation is proposed" How have they
determined that there would be no significant noise? Has it been measured? Have
they documented an instance where amplified music was played and could not be heard
by the neighbors? There are no grounds and no proof of the statement, "no significant
noise impacts would result"
• The Scoping document asked the applicant to specify (p.10-1 1 under heading: Opera-
tion), seasons of use, intensity of use, whether the site would be open to special events
such as weddings, conferences or catering events. This request was not answered. In
addition they were to indicate activities such as, "outdoor parties, placement and use of
loudspeakers, concerts or special events including frequency, location, time periods and
schedule:' This request was not answered.
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
• "Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies" - not
addressed.
-The fact that a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit is required is missing from the document.
• The application for a sewage disposal permit to the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services is deficient. In section 4, number 2 of the application it states the property is not in a
Coastal Erosion Hazard area, which is incorrect.
• There is no application/request for the required Reduction/Waiver of Minimum Separation
Distances. Exhibit I is missing.
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
• Constraints in terms of depth of groundwater- not addressed.
2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
• "Impact on surrounding properties of completely re-sculpting the existing topography
and creating of two large hills" - not addresed.
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
• "Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts" - not addressed.
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Consistency of proposed project with Non Point Source Management Handbook is to
be evaluated. The handbook calls for limited removal of natural vegetation and creation
of lawn areas. Currently, 15.3 acres of the overall 18.27 acres are naturally vegetated.
Upon implementation there will be only 2.03 acres with natural vegetation and intertidal
beach. How can this be called limited removal of natural vegetation?
• Non-Point Source Management Handbook calls for minimum grade changes and site
clearing. The proposed project calls for steep incline in northeast corner of the property
- from 9' to 16' creating a waterfall. This is inconsistent with existing grades.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 5 of 10 pages
• Marina and *t pollution (DEIS p. 160) Does this mealvernight and live-aboards
will not be permitted?
• "Nitrogen budget for site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be deter-
mined using mass balance modeling methods— not addressed.
• If existing buildings are to be removed (DEIS p. 168) why is new structure not required
to observe the 75' setback required by Environmental Conservation Law Article 25?
• "Impact of flood on sanitary system function, generator function, and restaurant/hotel/
cottage evacuation"— not addressed.
• Table 5 in Section 4.2.1 lists projected water usage.
• How did the applicant come up with the difference between restaurant seats which
generate 30 gals per seat water usage and cafeteria seats which seem to use only 2.5
gallons per seat, which is barely enough for a person to wash his/her hands and use a
low-flush toilet once.What are these cafeteria seats?Are they served by food automats
that are stocked with prefabricated wrapped snacks?
• Look at the 46 showers in the bath house. The generally accepted water usage for a
shower is 12.5 gallons per shower. Why are these listed at 5 gallons and is each shower
meant to be used by only one guest per day?
• The figure for the boat slips is actually laughable. If you have ever watched a boat
owner hose off his beloved craft for 20 minutes when he brings it into the marina,you
will realize that allocating only 10 gallons per slip means that it takes less water to wash
off a boat than it does for a person to shower. Indeed, any use of toilets or showers by
marina visitors seems to have been omitted.
• Also questionable is the idea that a facility this large will operate without any laundry
facilities.While indeed the applicant may promise at this point in the permitting process
not to do laundry on site, how would this provision ever be enforced?What is to stop this
owner or a subsequent one from installing washers and dryers?
• We believe that actual water usage would be higher than the roughly 15,000 gallons
per day that the applicant claims.
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
• What is the noise level of circulation pumps?
• What would prevent this or future owners from adding laundry facilities?
2.3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Impact of introducing freshwater habitat to area in which it does not exist naturally-
not addressed.
• Impact of loss of approximately 87% of natural vegetation and 72% increase in struc-
tures and paving and structures on the ecology of the site- incompletely addressed
• See p.14 of Scope.All items from 4th bullet to next to last are not addressed in DEIS.
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
• "Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined" This project proposes such wide scale disturbance to the
site that mitigation to reduce impacts don't even seem to apply.
• "Details on erosion control to protect ecology shall be included" - not addressed.
• The proposal does not conform to the Peconic Estuary Program's goals of maintaining
current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reducing hardening
structure by 5 percent, measured by the percent change of natural vs. hardened shore-
line through GPS mapping.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 6 of 10 pages
• The planneovetment plus the jetty on the east side Ale marina inlet will starve
beaches to the west.
• The inlet to the marina experience constant wave action which will require constant
maintenance to keep it open.
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
• Traffic Study conducted by Dunn Engineering submitted three weeks late, earlier study
does not include Sunday data, one of the busiest days of local traffic and additional
Cross Sound Ferry traffic which affect both the Main Road and Shipyard Lane.
• What is the width of Shipyard Lane (is it full 2 lane widths?) NYS Route 25 shoulders
are 8-10 feet and are not available as turn lanes, currently used as bike lanes with sig-
nage as such.
• Traffic volumes. Does not indicate volume of cars on Shipyard and Gillette. Should
include seasonal data. Turning times -signal at intersections not the number of cars
• The summary of the traffic study says there are "several' homes on Shipyard Lane.
There are over 20 homes on Shipyard Lane and 30 in Summit Estates (which is not yet
fully built-out) Their only access to Route 25 is through Shipyard Lane.
• Golf Lane, directly opposite Shipyard Lane, was excluded from the traffic study.
3.1.2 Anticipated Impact
• How wide would Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive need to be to accommodate two
formal, marked lanes of traffic? How many trips are currently typical on these two side
streets? How many trips would result with Shizen at the terminus? What is the percent-
age of increase?
• Table 7 on page 223 includes no numbers to compare to current volume
• Trip generation - hypothesizes public transportation use of "hotel vans" but no support
provided.
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
• The proposed widening of Shipyard Lane may encroach on private property and utility
poles.
• The proposed widening of the Main Road will affect the bicycle lane.
3.2 Land and Water Use,Zoning and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
• The Town of Southold Zoning Code defines a transient motel "not to be construed to
include a resort motel" How does this qualify?
• The Zoning Code stipulates one guest unit per 4,000-square-feet of land with public wa-
ter and sewer.This plan also includes a restaurant, marina, manager's residence, swimming
pool and maintenance facility. It is not clear this is permitted under current zoning.
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Page 16 of Scope, last bullet on the page to first 5 bullets on page 17—not ad-
dressed.
• Subsurface parking indicated in the preferred alternative where the water table is 2.5
feet below the surface is impractical and unprecedented in the area. DEIS gives no
examples or specifications.
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
• This section (p. 251) includes no discussion of mitigation measures.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 7of10pages
3.3 Community Facilitleand Services •
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
• There is no mention of handicapped facilities or accommodation.
• There is no mention of winter heating.What is the source of energy?Where will fuel be
stored?
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
• Disorganized in terms of aesthetics and community character. the point of view is of
the developer and not of community.
• Deals only with dilapidated site currently - no discussion of existing neighborhood
character.
• What is zoning, lot size, density per acre of nearby properties?What are aesthetics of
community? Consider Main Road typical homes, also Shipyard Lane homes. How does
proposed project fit into these aesthetics/community character?
• There is no discussion in the report of the 'commercial' uses currently in place in EM.
These are, of course, Sees and Angel's Deli. What are the respective sizes of these busi-
nesses compared to the size of Shizen?
• What is the size of the 'typical' home in EM? How does this compare with the square-
footage of the built structures at Shizen?
• Discuss the complete lack of barriers to the street (i.e. fences, hedges, etc.) in East
Marion with the closed nature of the Shizen property, typified by the 20-foot-high
planted berm and gated facility.
• Compare the population of East Marion with the projected transient population of Shi-
zen on any weekend. What is the projected population increase by percentage?
• Discuss the 'open door' atmosphere and personal recognition of neighbors that char-
acterizes East Marion. With the population increase that will be 100% composed of
transients, how will this impact the character of East Marion? Will kids be able to ride
their bikes on their streets?Will neighbors be able to take quiet walks safely?
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
• There has been no consideration given to the existing, neighboring structures on the
shoreline, or to the general architectural ambiance of existing buildings that characterize
Southold Town in general.The new structure represents a significant deviation from the
Cleaves Point community which occupies the site immediately to the west The design
approach in no way embraces or acknowledges the existing aesthetic of surrounding
structures.The proposed main building embodies none of the qualities or characteristics
of existing structures and in fact looks like a corporate headquarters. This does not in
anyway reflect or embrace the rural nature of the area and a quality that we believe the
Town is making an effort to protect. It flies in the face of all those characteristic aesthet-
ics. There has been no effort to use or incorporate the traditional building materials (wood,
shingle,etc.) or the design approach which characterizes the Town. The large expanse of
glass is visually jarring compared to the condos it abuts as well as other existing structures
along the coastline.While it would no doubt afford those inside expansive views of the
bay, it departs significantly from the existing ambiance of the coast and produces a hard
edge visual that is inconsistent with the existing coastline. It selfishly provides those few
transients inside with a lovely view at the expense of all users of the Bay.The neighbors
will be confronted by this "corporate headquarters" aesthetic when they exit their homes.
They as well as all residents on the street will be subjected to the increased traffic com-
EastMarion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 8 of 10 pages
ing and goingoich will contribute negatively to the comolty character of the area The
shoreline residents of Shelter Island will be subjected to a wall of glass that will, depending
on the weather, either reflect the sun in a blinding strip, or appear a dark black stripe along
the opposite shore. Interestingly,the main building has no aesthetic connection with the
single/individual structures in its proposal. Not only does the main building fly in the face
of local aesthetics, it bears no relationship to the other proposed buildings on the site.
• How can a large hotel and restaurant operation create "no significant adverse noise
impacts"?
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
• The proposed public road alterations to accommodate additional traffic will also change
the character of the area These modifications are for the exclusive convenience of the
proposed spa visitors and strike us as intrusive to the nature of the community in general.
• "Non-business hours" are not specified
3.5 Historical and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
• Correspondence from SHPO recommended close interval shovel testing of the area
to provide data on the distribution of prehistoric materials across the site. There is no
followup in the DEIS.
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
• Will construction activity be restricted to week days?
4.2 Cumulative Impacts - not addressed.
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
The applicant cites increased storm water runoff, increased water use and additional vehicle
trips. These will have a permanent adverse effect on the hamlet of East Marion and can be
avoided by not approving this project.
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources - Not addressed.
4.5 Growth Inducing Aspects - Not addressed.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
• Why has there been no alternative offered other than those which are totally unacceptable to
the community?Why not an alternative that is aligned with the priorities set forth in the LWRP
(such as public access to the bay?) Why not an alternative that respects the history of the site
and the aesthetics and character of the community? Why not an alternative which is compat-
ible with the population density of East Marion?
• The LWRP recommended use of this site as a public marina.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:
• The Preferred alternative design does NOT address the following issues:
• The plan's parking — a sub-grade garage - could contaminate groundwater and the bay dur-
ing a storm or flood; the excavation could contaminate groundwater.
-The plan to remove separate cottages near the east property line is not addressed..
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 9 of 10 pages
•Alternative buildirOcations to ensure FEMA compliance Ass use of fill is not ad-
dressed.
• Page 297 notes the complex will generate 19 tons of garbage per month, yet the dumpster
locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties are not addressed.
•The traffic generated will combine with hourly Cross Sound Ferry traffic estimated at 400
cars per hour passing the intersection of Shipyard Lane and Route 25. This creates additional
safety hazards for the community. This issue was not addressed.
• A winter heating source, a water heating source and a restaurant energy source for cooking
have not been addressed.
• In the preferred alternative site plan the square-footage for the 114 motel units exceeds the
30 percent allowance for site development.
• What is the setback from the basin wetlands for the east side cottage buildings?
• In conclusion, there is nothing in the proposed project or the preferred alternative site plans
that is consistent with the waterfront character and visual quality of the community. Either pro-
posal would result in significant adverse impacts. This is an out-sized, commercial, 24/7 com-
plex that will add nothing but disturbance and irrevocable damage to the quality of life of our
community. The goals of the LWRP include protecting sensitive coastal areas and maximizing
public access to the waterfront. These proposals only address public access on a pay-as-you-
go basis. This site is one of the only areas in East Marion that would give residents access to
the bay.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 10 of 10 pages
Marion Manor Property Owners' Association
c/o Candi Harper
290 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
October 29, 2008
Supervisor Scott Russell & Members of the Board of Trustees
VLhairwoman Jeri Woodhouse & Members of the Planning Board
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Supervisor Russell, Chairwoman Woodhouse, and Members of the Board
of Trustees and Members of the Planning Board of Southold:
At the annual meeting of the Marion Manor Property Owner's Association
on October 25th, the membership of our organization voted unanimously to ask
you to reject the DEIS submitted for the Shizen Hotel and Spa as incomplete and
woefully inadequate. We urge you to stand up to this proposed behemoth and
just say NO.
We believe that the town would be wasting time and money to hold public
hearings on such an incomplete DEIS. Many of the issues outlined in the
scoping document are not even addressed. For example, the environmental
impacts of the operation phase of the project are missing. When issues are
addressed, we find that adverse impacts in general are egregiously
underestimated and that the proposed mitigation measures are impractical or, in
some cases, actually irrational. For example, imagine a world class spa without a
pool and bath house! The idea creates a contradiction in terms. Or indeed an
underground garage where the water table is a mere 2.5 feet below the surface.
And yet these are the very mitigating measures offered by the DEIS.
One of our biggest concerns as immediate neighbors to the proposed
development has to do with Section 4.2 Water Resources. We have been
experiencing increasing problems in our neighborhood with runoff and rising
water tables because of just the modest residential development that has taken
place. A development the size of Shizen would strain the fragile ecosystem we
depend upon to the breaking point.
Table 5 in Section 4.2.1 of the DEIS lists projected water usage. The applicant---
admits that the proposed development would use about 15,000 gallons of W}tg
a day. That is a staggering amount, but we believe that the Applicant has
purposefully underestimated the actual water usage. 1
__ i
For example, how did the applicant come up with the difference between
restaurant seats which generate 30 gals per seat water usage and cafeteria
seats which seem to use only 2.5 gallons per seat, which is barely enough for a
person to wash his/her hands and use a low-flush toilet once. What are these
cafeteria seats? Are they served by food automats that are stocked with
prefabricated wrapped snacks? No explanation of the difference between
restaurant seats and cafeteria seats is given.
Look at the 46 showers in the bath house. The generally accepted water
usage for a shower is 12.5 gallons per shower. Why are these listed at 5 gallons
and is each shower meant to be used by only one guest per day?
The figure for the boat slips is actually laughable. If you have ever
watched a boat owner hose off his beloved craft for 20 minutes when he brings it
into the marina, you will realize that allocating only 10 gallons per slip means that
it takes less water to wash off a boat than it does for a person to shower. Indeed,
any use of toilets or showers by marina visitors seems to have been omitted.
Also questionable is the idea that a facility this large will operate without
any laundry facilities. While indeed the applicant may promise at this point in the
approval process not to do laundry on site, how would this provision ever be
enforced?What is to stop this owner or a subsequent one from installing
washers and dryers?
In summary, we believe that actual water usage would be higher than the
roughly 15,000 gallons per day that the applicant claims.
Now look at Section 4.2.2 Sanitary Disposal ad Water Supply! The
applicant proposes to mitigate the effects of the higher than allowed water usage
by installing a Cromaglass wastewater treatment system which would treat
sewage on site. The applicant claims that this system will be noiseless and
odorless. We are not told, however, how often the sludge which collects in these
tanks would have to be pumped out and what the effect of that pumping on the
neighbors would be.
Even more worrisome than the sludge pumping, however, is the fact that
while the Cromaglass system may alleviate some water quality concerns, it does
absolutely nothing to allay our fears about the quantity of water this proposed
development would pump in and discharge into a fragile and already nearly
saturated area. It is equivalent to turning a hose onto an already saturated
sponge.
The Preliminary Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
requires that the applicant address the "change in hydrology of the site in terms
..of quantity of recharge under existing and future conditions" as well as "issues
regarding increased water table elevations " and "potential to increase flooding in
the area." None of these issues --- which are of vital interest to us — have been
addressed!
In the last decade many of the vacant lots in Marion Manor have been
developed. Inherent in this residential development of single family homes has
been the cutting down of the second growth stands that were there even just six
or seven years ago. These wooded lots used to absorb a lot of rainwater and the
trees prevented runoff. Now, instead of wooded lots we have houses connected
to SCWA water supply, and all of us have experienced more basement flooding
and increased street flooding.
This has happened with just the addition of about 20 single family homes.
What is going to happen if a behemoth development cuts down almost every tree
on the adjoining 18 acres, and then starts pumping in 15,000 gallons a day of
water that the earth is supposed to absorb? This is a recipe for disaster and there
are no answers in this DEIS!
The applicant proposes to move in great quantities of earth in order to
bring the ground level higher above the water table. Almost all existing vegetation
with its deep root system would be removed. "Hay bales' and "temporary
plantings" are proposed as mitigating measures. It would take years for the newly
planted landscaping to develop a root system strong enough to hold the soil in
place. In the meantime, the roads, the neighbors and the bay will be dealing with
not only rising water tables but also increased silt runoff.
One mitigation measure that the applicant proposes is a subsurface
parking garage in order to minimize the paved surfaces on the property.
However, no where in the DEIS is the feasibility of a parking garage below the
water table discussed, nor the additional adverse impact that such a submerged
structure might have on the water table itself. Parking garages are not generally
built below water level, so obviously if this one is going to be built below the
water line, precautions and special measures must be necessary to prevent
flooding. The applicant presents this measure as if it were an everyday
occurrence.
As stated above, we are also greatly concerned about the applicant's lack
of information on the impacts of the operation of this proposed development.
This segment is completely missing from the document. And we are outraged
that the applicant dismissed the town's own Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan
as impractical because the land is privately owned.
We urge you to take advantage of any measures possible to stop this
development in its tracks. We strongly support your using the definition of MII
zoning which allows a transient hotel, but not a destination resort. We believe
you should send the applicant back to the drawing board on the DEIS. All of us,
every single property owner on Gillette, East Gillette, Midland and Cleaves Point
• i
Roads wants you to stand up to this extravagant project and exercise your duty
to protect your constituents.
LASER FICHE FORM
Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans
WINE
SPRe Type:
Project Type: Site Plans
Status: Application
SCTM # : 1000 - 38.-7-7.1
Project Name: Shizen/GAZA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do
Address: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Hamlet: East Marion
Applicant Name: Patricia Moore, Esq.
Owner Name: Oki-Do, LTD
Zone 1: MII
Approval Date:
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A date indicates that we have received the related information
End SP Date:
Zone 2: Zone 3:
Location: approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shipyard Lane, East Marion
SC Filing Date:
C and R's :
Home Assoc:
R and M Agreement:
SCANNED
SCAN Date: Records Management
0 6 MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ��pf SOpj�o P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE h� Southold, NY 11971
Chair # OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS CA is Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H. SIDOR G �O 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON 'M ..11 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND C�UIY1,�� Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
August 6, 2007 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Mrs. Linda Goldsmith
PO Box 758
East Marion, NY 11039
Re: GAIA Holistic Circle
2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
SCTM #: 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mrs. Goldsmith:
The Planning Board received your letter in July 2007 and reviewed your request to meet on
several issues.
Please be advised that the Planning Board is in review of the above-referenced application under
the NYS SEQRA regulations. The application Public Scoping Meeting was held on October 16,
2006 and allowed comments to be received at the Planning Department up to October 26, 2006.
On November 6, 2006 the Planning Board adopted the Final Scope and required the applicant to
submit a response.
At this time, we must decline your request to meet and discuss concerns. We request that you
submit the issues of concern in writing to the Planning Department Office for the file record.
Additionally, please note a public hearing will need to be scheduled for public comment on this
site plan prior to the Planning Board reviewing for a final action.
We would like to thank you again for the request.
Sincerely,
Jerilyn B Woodhouse
Chairperson
Cc: File
Supervisor Russell
f 9vi3r
To
Box 7s8 cc
East Marion,NY 11939 -FJ �
July 1, 2007M�
Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Ms. Woodhouse and Planning Board Members:
As a member of the newly forming East Marion Association, I am asking for a meeting
with the Planning Board on several issues that concern East Marion,most notably the
Oki-Do Project. Supervisor Russell indicated that a meeting with the Planning Board and
several members of our Association was something that was feasible.
Would you let me know when this could happen? We could make sure the meeting was
succinct.
Thank you for honoring our request. You can contact me by email at
CLG51574(a)optonline.net of phone at 680-5631,477-2876.
incerely,
j
Lm smithC���"
i
Cc Supervisor Russell - 2007 I
Box 758
East Marion,NY 11939
July 1,2007
Dear Supervisor Russell:
I want to let you know of the most professional and rapid responw to phone calls placed
to the Building Dept. (specifically Darvon Rallis),and Planning Board(Amy fa?-d).
There were quesbons asked regarding activity on the Oki Do,property at the south end of
Shipyard Lane.
The Code Enforcement officer Mr. Forrester in addition to all the Trustees were informed
and immediately visited the site and checked permits,as well as-spoke tothepeople
working there.
Within in IS hours i was contacted regarding my questions.
Such concerned and rapid response is greatly appreciated. Please share these sentiments
with your Town Board members.
.. . . ...... .
'i ldsmith t::.
g
J U L - 2007 I`
Cc Planning Board 1
Trustees L
Bldg. Dept
Code Enforcement --
.t s
7e
NOV — 3 2006
s��cnQ;a �aw�
PI¢ 2 t
i
AAe—
TAFY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY,
DUBIN & QUARTARARO LLP
Attorneys at Law ��IITT
THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN B.LATHAM Post Office BE. 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LASALLE
JOHN F SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD G
CHRISTOPHER D-KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-9398 LAURA I.SGUAZZIN A
DAVID M.DUBINO
JAY P.OUARTARAROt BRYAN C.VAN COTT•
PETER M. MOTT Telephone: 631.727.2180 CYRUS G.DOLCE,JR.o•
JANICE L.SNEAD Facsimile: 631.727.1767 LISA A.AZZATO}
JANE DIGIACOMO KATHRYN DALLI
PHILIP D.NYKAMP DANIEL G.WANI t
MARTIN D. FINNEGANB www.suffolklaw.com JENNIFER A.ANDALORO
ANNE MARIE GOODALE KELLY E. KINIRONS
ULIX IN TAXATION1
f". IN,EST,FTE PLANNING O
�. PY a LA BARS 0
W.b CT BARS
BY HAND 0
NV,W. PA BARS
& p
NV NJ BARS
y^ NY, G &A, FL BARS}
October 26, 2006 s NJ FIT &a FL BARB
Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion,NY ;
SCTM#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001
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.
TRAFFIC
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 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 112, FL 1S 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300
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. Shipyard 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" effect. If the
parking were centralized, such an effect 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 reflagged 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.
• If the buildings are moved landward as a result, the visual impact on the neighbors would
be lessened.
THE DUMPSTER
Cleaves Point is concerned 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 concerns 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
0 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 DEIS and FEIS.
We appreciate your including this letter and its attachments as part of the record of this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Kathryn Dall /
/enc.
cc: Cleaves Point Condominium Association
GPIGreenman - 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
GPI 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 of 5
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 terms 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
coefficient 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
drywells 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 SCDHS. What are the plans for their removal? At a
minimum, a summary of a Phase I environmental site assessment should be included in
the DEIS.
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 DEIS should include a discussion of the current SCDHS 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 archaeologically
sensitive. Therefore, a Phase IA study and report, at a minimum, should be included.
As noted in the draft scope, the DEIS 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 DEIS.
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 DEIS.
Sincerely,
GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Robert Grover
Director
Environmental and Coastal Sciences
O:\2000\2000303\CORRES\TRANSMITTALS\GaiaPlanningBoard 102506.doc
•
GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
August 3, 2006
Ms. Sue Hallock
Cleaves Point Condominiums
P.O. Box 29
Greenport, N.Y. 11944
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 system 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 Chia Tm fic Study\Graia report 080406.doc
325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702
Tel:(631)5975060 Fax:(631)4223479
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 Kwanzan 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.
- wmgMN
c
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.
Ex sting No Build Build Build/mod
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec/veh sec/veh seclveh sec/veh)
AM 16.8 C 21.2 C 27.4 D 25.4 D
PM 18.3 C 22.3 C 29.7 D 28.4 D
Sun 31.6 D 50.5 F 150.3 F 129.3 F
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 '/2 minutes to enter the roadway. While
somewhat helpful to the overall approach, the report freely admits that the proposed
roadway modification of widening 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.
GPI
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 '/2 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.
It
TRANQUIL SHIPYARD LANE WITH GALA PROJECT SITE ON RIGHT
GPI 0 0
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.
,t t
ENTRANCE TO CLEAVES 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 25A/CR 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 home 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/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
G
licael ftti, PE, PTOE
Vice President
Director of Transportation Services
�� yy -
♦I•.
J '
b �l►•AN
OR i
i g � , �`, �� _ , � �; .� 'moi ! _: � i • :■
. I r
i .
..fib' / •�
0 F5
LAW OFFICES
WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.C.
13015 MAIN ROAD, P.O.BOX 1424 WILLIAM WICKHAM(06-02)
MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND
ERIC J.BRESSLER NEW YORK 11952 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM SUITE 111
LYNNE M.GORDON MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747
JANET GEASA 631-298-8353 ----
TELEFAX NO.631-298-8565 631-249-9480
wwblaw@aol.com TELEFAX NO.631-249-9484
October 25, 2006 s
Southold Town Planning Board
Post Office Box 1179; 53095 Main Road 1 Cr -
Southold, New York 11971
h
Re: Gaia Holistic Circle/Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM #: 1000-38-7-9
Ladies/Gentlemen: »-.•
On behalf of John Kent, of 2195 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY, the residence immediately
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 underground 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 be 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 determining 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 traffic 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:
1. 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 flooding 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 MII).
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 you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
'Abigail A. Wickham
AAW/jt
30/shdtpb
Page 1 of 1
LAC
From: <kentj@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: <Ichiarmt@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:39 AM
Attach: Picture 507.jpg
Subject: Picture 507
�I
Ylorn �U� C� ldnww w Q
10/15/2006
Page 1 of 1
LAC
From: <kentj@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: <Ichiarrnt®suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:13 AM
Attach: Picture 498.jpg
Subject: Picture 498
a
r
s
*4.:
10/15/2006
Page 1 of 1
,. Ok> L • •
LAC
From: <kentj@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: <Ichiarmt®suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:11 AM
Attach: Picture 502.jpg
Subject: Picture 502
10/15/2006
ROBERT F. MUIR .
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION,NY 11939 177
/JS
Ms Jeri Woodhouse, Chairman October 24, 2006 RF
Plaining Board
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Chairman Woodhouse:
Re: Glia 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 Cootral,Limitation of Flores,Lindabo a as to the Number of Special Events
allowed during the year.
We spoke to Mrs.Moore Monday about parking,specifically Why Parking along the
Emergency Road? She informed as that if the need now they had the right to convert
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 pians ai will?
We have a quiet and peaceful residential area and it would be a disaster to have that
peace and way of life destroyed by something that does not enhance our community or
provides a benefrt to East Marion.
Respectfully submitted,
37C,u-�
Robert and.. . Muir
!: 2850 Gillette Drive
t East Marion,NY 11939
QCT 2 6 2006
• ISF
3S
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-rime, 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 of life 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 of the 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.O.Box 101
East Marion,NY 11939 IIOCT 2
l�L:
>j
Boat 747
East Marion,NY 11939 r
October 20,2006
Southold town Planning Board -
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Chairman Woodhouse and Members:
After attending the Scoping session on Mon. Oct. 16 regarding the Oki-Do sLatt6_td,
o€Shipyard Lane,I have several other items that I would like addressed. ---`` —
MI Dsx
What are the"various other outdoor amenities"in the proposal? It is impb€tant to know
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 generate 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 the"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 waterfront in
East Marion? There hasn't been much money spent in our hamlet,I don't believe.
This could end up being an eminent domain issue. The public good will not be served by
a facility that will DOUBLE the population of East Marion.
Thank you for your conside
ynt 'a G smrtls,res1den� �
Summit Estates
- 1L�f'�4/217 e�6 'L9:0' o31d711435 SACHEM HS MCRTH PAGE 01
10/18/06
Jeralyn Woodhouse, Chairperson
Southold Town Planning Board — —
Southold Town Hall
53035 Main Road o
Southold,NY 11971 - j
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the �o
Thank you again for the chance to speak abouf?%TfSvironmental
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:
I. 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? I
think the biggest problem of the Draft Scoping Document is that it
looks only at the immediate effects of the Oki-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 of pumping 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 terrible traffic situation already
existing in.East Marion where residents often wait several minutes
before being able to pull out onto the North Road.
10/24/20D6 69:0" 63147114d8 SACHEM FE. MURTH PAC=s 92
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 of the 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.
T The noise emanating from a restaurant and center of the size
proposed.
8. The noise emanating from the generators, trash compactors, etc. that
are proposed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to the scope of the EIS.
Th you,
Candi Harper
President, Marion Manor
Homeowners Association
290 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
�t OYSTERPONDS U ES.D. IN ORIENT 3 S
i 23405 MAINROAD }�
ORIENT NY 11957
Telephone 631323-2410
Fax 631323-3713
Website:www.oysterponds.kl2.ny.us
Dr.Stuart Rachlin
Superintendent
October 16,2006
Ms.Jeri Woodhouse,Chairperson
Southold Town Planning Board
P O Box 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 impact of a potentially increased student enrollment due to employee housing(on-
site or off-site)and/or winter rentals of the 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 students require special
services,we could be forced to employ additional teachers or service providers which would greatly increase
our budget—well after the beginning 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 status of this
project,and rest assured that 1, in tum,will relate all information to my Board of Education.
4SSmcerelchlin,Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Cc: Mr.B. Semon
Ms.R.Oliva /!.
Mr.J.King
Supervisor S. Russell
i
aR
East Marion,NY 11939
G. Woodhouse, Chairman
Southold To-,7,-.i Planning Board
Main Road
Southold,N`r' 11971
;VSs. i�liGlnse and Pllalning Board
This letter will se-;e_ to record out-ounce"_s regarding the Oki-Do Spa,potentially to be
built on the waierfront at the end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion,NY.
Jur concerns are wide-ranging. First is the idea that our small section of the waierironi
c;,n support such a project. A s you knww Summit Fst.^.!ec Association ciuci ;,nd
maintains a small private beach and dock on the saltie waterfront,only a few hundred
yards from the proposed Pew project. With the proposed increased umt-er traffic and
recreational use we are convinced dial our beach and waterfront will be rendered
unusable.
Another major concern is noise. There is no noise ordinance in Southold Town. The
number of proposed boats and cars,not to mention construction vehicles alone will
generate a level of noise that is going to be unbearable. Add to that a public restaurant,
retail shops, ":-----3ttry Ute- " office apace, a private restaurant annCX, a coveted deck, a
i 997square foot private residence; and a 7200 square foot maintenance building,and
perhaps entertainment,maybe a Avedding or`:'.o,and tie level will 1N increased to that
which will negatively impact upon our property values, which will lead to less tax
revenue when-,we are forced to g icvc our taxcs dtic to much lowcr propcity values.
A third and most grievous concern is traffic. The traffic generated by this project is such
that Shipyard Larie C;ANNO1 bear it. Shipyard Laine is a small, two lane country road.
It cannot he:widened without taking the property of others(and we would fight this
forever)and this road cannot bear up under a projected several hundred cars a day.
The traffic would negatively impact our property values as well as make it unsafe to exit
our roads and driveways. Our children could not ride their bikes, we could not walk our
dop,and we could not peacefully live with this kind of traffic. J ust the construction
min Tie alone would be dettrmental to the inaiustrucw-mc on Shipyard Lane,causing havoc
and unsafe conditions. Just having people come to see the Spa will generate unbearable
traffic,and Lrc patrons who use Ute Slra facilities will of course be :raveling the roads to
visit.sites in the rest.of Southold 'Town. This will engender traffic that will cause
accidents and u—safe conditions.
There are other concerns as well. =vIif1 the cottages become winter rentals' Will the
smell of cookins waft towards our properties? Will the iobs import more workers who
0 •
wall need to he hnFFSed in the Tow•tl, and will the.SejnhS pay the nflyeff that are nece—SSar.,
fill I1o111CVw'Lel$liip: 111GJG are teal GVLI.Grlla.
Jur Association is comprised of first and second homeowriers. Some of iia have saved
for years in order to be able to live.work and retire here. Some of us have but our
home with our own hands. tiYc have cluldmil. We arc teachers and mechanics,lawyers
and homemakers. OurAssociation has rules which we must abide by. They are nor hent
ror any one properly. We object to ary variance,l clog brvep t:: this—pt-ijec, ,:incl we
certainly object to the scope of this proposed spa, Fact Marion cannot Cope with anything
this size. `Ve are-- small f urm' comim—lu ty and we are content that way. The small
Shipyard Lane community cannot sustain this level of development especially our roads
and el c le ivate-iftont.
to Southold Town we have 2 ac e zcmng, and FnatiF ptlm lot coverage sizes on building .
We are attempting to ruguiate accessory apartments. On an 18 acre parcel, it is likely that
only?house could be htFilt. The:cone of thi project far exc 3=what is allowable in
the Town,and provide no benefits for file residents of East Marion, who are unlikely to
use facilities such as these even occasionally.
Please put the concerns of the residents first,and the visitors to the spa a far distant
second when considering the negative environmental impact that a project this large and
ambitious will have upon the Summit Association homeowners and the entire Past
Marion and Shipyard Lane community,as well as the surrounding areas of Gillette Drive
and Maple Lane.
Sincerely,
'Cynthia Agosta, Secretary
Summit Estates Association
Shipyard Lime.
Last tdtaiion,N Y 11939
250%V A Ve
Dox %JQ
Fact Marior2 NY 1 110-110
G. Woodhouse.Chajrman
Sot;ha';d Town Planning-Board,
Whin road
>uutlAlid, . 1711
^i ajt rials 4"Mr, iiir:ise UNU -embers
of iilc P1ai iij g? oa s:
? �-n a�'fi cs to:; i- r- �-:--` ---- '-nr:iirr, the n -a �1L_i_P� bra at"- -s'1 of
»L. .no . 4.Le !:y LL'�'9L:1 V::D 'eC».»...t, . prLp:1SG.. .,t.» :::e e::
Shipyard iane in Fast Marion.
The hainiei ol"Fasi iviarion cannot sustain such a proied. i have read the letter submitted
mn X11 by Snmmit A-- i *ion ^? e tis�ith eve^y Ore^f their 4hJecti4 _ '. hslve
y`z c 4" ,. :,..,.
number of others.
._ — s -z - —L_tr_
i jive oil the GOTiicr 4f i dy i Vc. and t.6iite:5. i uc uai�a'1c continues wet iu:.o WC
evening on Route 25. That is a"major"road. On a small road such as Shipyard Lane,
the trafiic would be unreasonable.
'Rut the f4114W1na are my mGJ4T itiJf'X':tins. At the end:Tf:'1'.Uy ..ve. 'vti1F$U'amaI1 `a'Um.
"resort"motel,when I moved here in lyRl l from Orient. It was quiet,the traffic was
uixiest a.-.A slow and if it got rro sy a;•tried of two took caie grit. i invite yo„ to visit
NOW. The buildings are uninhahitahie—at one time sewage was draining into the
hacenteP.tS. Trete are ditLenl.S ofc_-- --.Oct f•Ln"Out of state"Parted All oVeE She C are
on the windows. Plywood covers the windows and sides of the building. There is no
iandscapi-la. I he t�af is on Lay A'rc. is c:'_._sssi?%c,Very blast,and a num"r of tinics I
have had to jump from the side of the road onto the neighbor's yard in order to avoid
being hrt by ?. C£15- As we sit m tilt y 15d V•'P.endiFSe lewd CCtnr rLia'•ntS fT[ n(15 vers,and 4115
lieu get teased uow those who walls and diive up the toad. 'i H1S IS WIiA'I'ftAFPi NS
WHEN A PRO.IF.CT CANNOT St'ST.A.1N ITSELF BEING UyS_FD AS IT WAS
i)I�IUIitiii�l.L i BUILT FOR. i.3ci:3iuC ii'iC Cozy C;OVC wlnicr business Was nvriw'7ir3tCIIi,
this hotel turned into sh,-housing,endangering all of us on this road. At one tine drug
dca3ing took place there.
t hen again we ha'v'e a hotel on the:,.ain road in F-Sr Marion about .5 mideS from nr'y'
house. This too was a modest family hotel, quiet and friendly. In the last years it has
gro ron iv be a h rt uit;ii slx a it has ail illegal �i bcheve}bed and hieAfast,banns on lug
weekends into the night;and a husy har Pieme come and sit with ns on a Saturday night
Fn ere Sin..^.oilier,fi onl 'fay fin,a.nd ijSteil ti;the nirn3ic. trot'.must listen to the n?usir it :..
so loud it cannot be avoided. We cannot entertain, we cannot open our windows, and
klen:s Nkitb yo-wing children NO' not stay ovenrrght because the Inds can't Sleep-
personally witnessed the bar selling to minors. The owners lusi.threaten to turn it into
r
1
we!f re hourin :when :.e corrmla.... ?r addition it is ro:v!�;� �d rertised :"::^'rte.
if this Spa is built, unless these foLks are endeavorm—to lose monev,there hill haVe to be
a mcchaniJlll it.place for the continuing use'1of i✓the rooms Wnd VVllagcs. 11'car that it ill
be wlriP_.f rentals, and entertainment- Wlh S�i" 11kP the.Cozy I A]Ve fe[ilalg'/ iI the
Blue's rentals? Please— a pri d, this ambitio'.; is nut sm—Lainable in East 1'Aurion
without some way of iicinu the facilities all winter, it will eventually he unrestricted in
its' uses and East Marion has [Bore that its sh.;,::. of"spa.."(tie Blue F3�Ipl-i._- o.-M!,
and less-than-iegai housing. We have several community-disrupting establishments.
And too— whl ere are`ee is workers:oiling from? Will they he pair,'.-:Mages to buy homes in
the Town,or will thev be housed ON THE PROPERTY??? This area is primarily
residential. it is not the place for a Spa thissin or rrctau ant,much less cottages and
catering Balis.
No variances should he given to this urolect. it is too big,too risky and has the potential
to ruin East Marion for good. Variances are not granted to put extra. houses on l
property. Wy not hold this prpject to the same standards? The negative environmental
impact upon East Marion will be so severe if this project is given a green light that 1 fear
for the hamlet. Rcquirc a study on the impacts of thiS iilojCCt T hail—just say no.
ineVely,
Linda Gol,Ishiith
ROBERT F.MUIR
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION,NY 11939
f75
Ms Jeri Woodhouse,Chairman October 14,2006
Planning Board
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Chairman Woodhouse:
Re: Gaia Circle-Oki-Do
As a longtime resident and adjacent t property owner I bring to your attention three
continuing concerns with the cogent proposal.
I. Drainage and the overflow onto the bordering Gillette Drive properties
2 The qty to have the Emegency Exit onto Ckaves Pomt Road be a
truly Gated and Restricted ewe.
3 There be a provision for continued Tax Basis for the property no matter
what the use designation i.e.now-profit or health related use. This is
particularly un1 ' ' for the benefit of due School District and other fire
protection and support services to our community.
I have written to The PLrooleg Board and The Zoning Board of Appeals,copies WAcbod..
These comms are still valid plus these additional thoughts.
Also enclosed are pw1ures tale®adler the October 2005 storm which left our area,and
the Oyster Plant property under 2 feet of water far the southern 1/3 of the property.
The water table is only 4 R belay ground in much of the area and planning to handle the
amount of rain in one of the large storms cannot be contained with dry wells that are only
4 feet deep. There is aheady a dry well at the end of the paved portion of Cleaves point
Road and that is not adequate at the present.
wed,
.! !,', Robert and Muir
L 2850 Gillette Drive
Fast Marion,NY 11939
. 'd�. '•-�' ,e a -..� ��
y
x,
a
h
.e
Fid'' gp'
NOr.
i
�.I.� g .. 3 �; nom•
f ,
wlwu 1, .:Grasi ,a£ s
o t
7 w
P rTw
�1'O n1 cw a�
� y�r�� � � f y ✓ CP�L� -PCX 1-27 n S C L
~l
UKP -moo , cl` 1
[3
l
u
j
1
w
i
• ROBERT F.MUIR •
2850 GILLETTE DRIVE
EAST MARION,NY 11939
James F.King Prue October 14,2006
Town Trustees
Southold,N.Y. 11971
President King: C
Re. Crain Circle Oki-Do proposal
Nancy and I have been property owners on Gillette Drive since 1961 and we built a
summer home in 1971 and retired full time in 1999 Oki-Do will be our back fence
neighbors and the emergency exit from the property at Cleaves Point Road is our
property line on the south.
We have several senor 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
newly filly developed with many young famalies and more than 16 young
children playing in the sheets,waw for the school bull or on their way
to the beach. Additional traffic from the Spa or during construction would
create a very dangerous situation
We have had serious drainage problems when there are heavy rams or
Northeaster slorm& Close attention to the control of the flow of water at
the Spa is required in order that the flooding situation not be increased.
The promoters claim that this entity will be"PmSt- " and will be
a taxpeyer for all local services including Schools,Fire Departments sec..
This must be guaranteed even if it later*becomes a non-pros[org.
We have followed the progress closely and have written several letters to the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals,copies are attached Also there are 4 photos
taken after the October 2005 rainstorm to show the extent of ahs flooding on the Oki-Do
property as wdow showing the road end at Cleaves Poiat Road and the yards of the two
adjacent house and yards.
We appreciate any input and oversight you may be able to fisnish as this Project
progresses.
In addition to being an immediate bordering neighbor and twipayer,I am also a Director
of The Marion Manor Property Owners Assoc ion and the District Treasurer of the
Oysterponds School District.
Respectfully Sind,
/179
S�
March 2, 2006
Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairman
Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road f
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Woodhouse
Re: Gaia Circle aka Oki-Do Property in East Marion (Formerly ter Farm)
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, j
9
'J
Robert F. Muir Joseph Licciardi
2850 Gillette Drive 50 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939 East Marion, NY 11939
B®6ERi F.HIM
'=L
0 GILLETTE DRIVE
Phone 631 477-0075 EAST MARION,NY 11939
Email muirhob@optooline.ou
Ruth D. Oliva-Chairperson July 05,2004
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold,NY 11971 '1
'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 GAIA CIRCLE. In addition to my previously stated concerns I add the following;
I• 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
areas. water circulation to avoid mosquito breeding
4. There must be a permanent commitment to keeping the property as a tax producer and not allow it to ever be a
"Ston-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.MUTE
Home Phone 631 477_ 2850 GIhLETTE DRIVE
Email muirbob 2225 EAST MARION,NY ll939
@optonline.net
_ September O5,2003
Lynda A. Tortora, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms Tortora:,
Reference is made to the OHI-DO application for the proe
rty
wife, Nancy Muir and I are he owners of lots#6 and#7 n the o�ginal Marion Manor subdivision or No.29.1 on
the Tax Ma bac Shipyard Lane,East Marson,NY. My
P king up to the OKI-DO property in question.
We are concerned with the following:
1 a 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 bec le to
families with small children. We would strenuously object if the streets became a major exit or entrance.
g fully developed with many
We understand the 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 ofthe road. We have seen to many cars come down
Gillette and tum right onto Cleaves Point Road expecting it to be a connecting road. It would be doubly dangerous
if large construction vehicles were allowed during the building period
Provide a quiet,relaxi
The object x. becoming a Holistic Center with
ng atmosphere for thonly walkways,not roads for access to the buildings is to
eir 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
shells and dirt a]on Potential problem. You will note that there is a`
and the adjacent ro the southeastern border of the property to kce � oons'sting mostly of oyster
portion ofthe road to help control the drahia� way D P water from draining
to Cleaves Point Road
ePartmnt constructed a"dry well„at the end of the paved
g and the flow ofwater during heavy rainstorms.
We Purchased Lot#6 on the"Map ofMazion Manor"August 13, 1963 and built our house in 1971. We enlarged
the original house in 1988 when it became our full time residence. Web enjoyed the peaceful existence to this
point and would object to any widen' of the streets to accommodate more traffic that would be caused by the
o
connecting Cleaves Point Road with OKI-DO as a regular entrance to exit. traffic
ewer
acceptable solution. Generally we find the proposal to be very well 1
emergency exit would be an
Panned.
Sincerely,
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
i
March 1st,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) residing on Gillette Drive whose numbers
quadruple in the summer with visiting grandchildren and summer residents. This
exit needs to gated and locked to ensure it is not used by Gaia employees,
construction and commercial deliveries. This restriction should apply during the
construction as well as after completion.
2. Drainage. We have serious problems with flooding on Gillette Drive and do not
want the problem enhanced by inadequate draining at the Gaia site. The drainage
plans and building 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 test bore results which show a large amount of clay in the
area further reducing water saturation into the earth.
3. Owner/Manager's House. 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, most likely wetland area. According
to the ground elevation plan, the south-east corner and up along the eastern
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. 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.
Fee M - ,Tel a_nLc�Gt� ---
,I
j :Jna(
J O
t,934a17-7
�u. miss ��Rljynl(�o�c(/wuse,G'/xzle
rjc+-7)nir,r� 15L`,ak(4
Told>, Had rjYl�t,NY
C1/cle
�
5 1 havd,adv merry rca
e Se �cs ohaecdrv�� 4c
how, eio
i WE
+,a•rr -
11 1 1. The ?ec6fenn O� 4f eirZ G� 'Jsfa
1 ►7`�lv�F/- ec5faule,97 fd 13c045 Cdt�
3 . FueP_ •s+
4Aeearn err t : ow —
nice Nerl P 0d ed p
S The ous,rlr �cssrb��/�Y °
Cul 4 5,0
C 7'l,/7�CJlPPS a rF Cc rl
�S yc•e!'hG. u' e ! >+h,ou.
beca_�sr c4 chi ri, mea{yrY Ift
S4sl
u EFY mu.c,( Cors nc c 11&,j cam• k� Orr ,j
Oct ca•( s(pa J,evFI. de} -/bit
Feel sdr o rely yrcc Slru/c( Y �,-
(�plJl,caJ,oe: Sincri-��Y�
I t,tc51�P5
l_
LAW OH I(F.S
WICKHAM, BRESSLER, GORDON & GEASA, P.C.
13015 MAIN ROAD. P.O. BOX 1424 WILLIAM WICK[[AM(06-02)
MATTITUCK,LONG ISI.AND
ERIC J. BRESSI.ER NEW YORK 1195'_ 275 BROAD IIOLLOW ROAD
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM SUITE I I I
LYNNE M.GORDON MELVILLE. NEW YORK 11747
JANET GEASA 631-298-8353 ----
TELEFAX NO.631-298-8565 631-249-9480
wwblawCaaol.com � .,,;1L:LE Au `49-9484
..
June 26. 20 ,.
Attn: Amy Ford -I 7il
Southold Town Planning Board 1 v���_
Post Office Box 1179; 53095 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971 JUN 2 7 2006
Re: Gaia Holistic Circle/Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM #: 1000-38-7-9
Dear Ms. Ford:
Our firm has been retained by John Kent, who owns the residence immediately adjacent to
the proposed service entrance to the Oki-Do project on Shipyard Lane in East Marion. I would
appreciate your advising us of the progress of this matter and copy us on correspondence. Mr.
Kent is directly affected by this project, probably more so than any other property owner, and
has a strong interest in following all stages of the application.
We will provide you with specifics of Mr. Kent's position once we have had an opportunity
to fully review the proposal. However, his initial concerns are as follows:
1. Over-intensification of use at the site, and permissibility of multiple uses and scope of each
use. The scale of the project appears to exceed the permitted use and density parameters.
2. Location of service entrance, generator, and waste treatment plant next to the neighboring
residential properties and away from applicant's residential areas. The residential uses on the
applicant's site are being isolated from the noise, traffic, odors, parking and other detrimental
environmental effects they create by placement of these service uses near the residential
neighborhood.
Very
G(/Dze�Z
Abigail A. Wick am 1
.4AW/jr
30,shdipb
CONSENT
RE:Gaia Holistic Circle(Oki-Do)
2835 Shipyard Lane, E Marion,NY
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
JOHN V. KENT,the owner of property located at 2195 Shipyard Lane,E. Marion NY.
(SCTM#-1000-38-1-240), do hereby consent to Wickman, Bressler, Gordon&Geasa,
P.C.and their engineers,agents,or other contractors retained by any of the
above and any of their representatives and'or agenda,to review and make
appropriate comment and opposition on the applications on the Oki-Do project
submitted to the Southold Town Planning Board,the NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation,the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals,and the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services and for any other matters related
thefeto. This authorization shall include all matters in connection with those
applications.
Dated: June 7 , 006
/JohnKent
June 15, 2006
290 Cleaves Point Roads'"
East Marion, NY 1193�
Chairperson Jerilyn Woodhouse and Members of the Board
Southold Planning Board
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 4 JUN 2 0
n
Re: Proposed Oki-Do Development in East Marion — '1
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the Board:
I am a neighbor of the proposed Oki-Do Development on the site of the old Oyster
Factory at Cleaves Point. I have followed the proposal for developing the site with great "
interest both as a neighbor and a member of the community that will be affected by a
hotel as large as any ever built in Eastern Long Island. The impacts of this proposed
development go far beyond the traffic problems created for residents either of Shipyard
Lane or Gillette Drive, depending on where the entrances are eventually located. In fact,
the traffic impacts would pale in comparison with the economic and life style changes in
store for the small non-commercial community of East Marion.
The size of this development dwarfs everything that has ever been built on the East End.
The proposed Oki-Do is as big as Gurney's Inn in Montauk, and about four times bigger
than anything now existing on the North Fork. In fact, the size of the hotel is staggering.
The developers are asking for a 185-seat restaurant. If this restaurant changed from a
quiet seating area for meditating visitors to an open-seating restaurant served by a marina,
Claudio's dock would look and sound like a tea room in comparison.
I am also deeply concerned that the business plan for this meditation resort is shaky at
best, and that we as neighbors would sooner or later face the takeover of this
development by other interests. It is hard to imagine a well-heeled clientele seeking peace
and healing opportunities visiting East Marion and paying top dollar for accommodations
throughout January, February, and the other drearier months. The developers admit that
the price tag of the proposal could be above$40. They told us at a meeting that the owner
could fund this amount from her personal fortune without the need of investors. This may
or may not be true,but my concern is that even if Mrs. Hillyer funds the development
initially, she may not be willing to fund a losing business forever, and that is where the
real trouble for us begins. We could be living next to a very commercial operation of
unprecedented scale.
There also seems to be a total lack of concern for the employees needed to run such a
large development. There are not even parking spaces allocated for the 110 employees
the developers say would be needed to service the hotel when full. There is no attempt to
address the need for housing of these employees. Either they will be driving by the
carload from Riverhead, or—as the lawyer for the developer stated in our town meeting—
occupying empty rooms in the hotel!!!
Throughout this country, communities impacted by rapid development and rising real
estate prices are starting to stand up to developers and make them pay all the costs of
their developments. Southold has the opportunity to join this growing group of
development-savvy communities by carefully evaluating all the impacts this development
could have.
Respectfully submitted,
Candida Harper
� r.+}
, . ,�, ,� � , , � � C E I V E
�l-�
��
f ' ` '
; -
�:
. � ,
r:�.,-� - -:'
!�
-- -•�- ; .
..
�� � � ,
-. _�
..
� . � i
� ' -
/ � � _i
� � / /
ii
i �
• / / � , r
� / � ', ��
♦ �
� � _ � � � s
i
� -i
_ � ,
• • 7
OYSTERPONDS U.F.S.D. INOAINT q esso�s
23405 AWNROAD ps
ORIENT NY 11957
&-'66, 4>F17'
Telephone 631323-2410
Fax 631333�BBJ3?{3�
Website:www.oysterpondUl2.ny.us
Dr.&uariRachJin I RECEIWD 3r/ L3
Superintendent
May 5, 2006 MAY 12 2006
Town Board
Town of Southold Souilaoid Tccrn Clerk
P O Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Trustees of the Town Board,
It has recently come to our attention that construction is planned, under the name"O-Ki-Da",
to take place at the end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion within the boundaries of the
Oysterponds Union Free School District. As I am sure you are aware, there are times when
the intended use of construction changes after time with the potential of impacting school
taxes.
On behalf of the Board of Education of the Oysterponds UFSD, I would implore you to insist
that, on the approval of construction and ultimately on the deed, it be stated that, in the event
that the use of the establishment become not-for-profit, the funds that would have been paid
to the school district as taxes shall be converted to PILOTS.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
y ... 4
Stuartchlin, Ed.D. 0 U :
Superintendent D `
I MAY 1 5 2006
Cc: Board of Education Southold Town
Representative Marc Alessi Planning.908rd
Representative Timothy Bishop
Senator Kenneth P. LaValle
w
April 26, 2006
S91Yt••c',d:aL�� Z
Dear Southold+' Planning Board,
I have lived on Gillette Drive for several years with my daughter who attends the
Oysterponds School. I live in this neighborhood in East Marion because it is a
quiet and safe one and because it is a good place to raise a family.
The proposed Oki-do spa/restaurant will be overwhelming to the neighborhood around
the old Oyster Factory property. Between all the construction vehicles and the guests,
employees, and restaurant diners coming and going it will bring so much more traffic to
the already busy Route 25 and our neighborhood.
I am afraid that it will no longer be safe for our children to ride their bikes around here.
Please think of the people who already live here as you consider the big plans that
are being proposed.
Sincerely,
Kristy Van Brunt
April 22, 2006
Zoning Board of Appeals APF 2 5 2006
Planning Board
Building Department
Town of Southold
Southold, New York 11971
As residents of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY we have many concerns about the
proposed Gaia Holistic Circle Okido development at the Oyster Factory site.
The overall scope of the project is much too large for the residential neighborhood on
Shipyard Lane. The multiple requested uses of the development (healing center, motel,
spa, restaurants, educational activities, marina, etc.)are open-ended and will cause
significant disruption to Shipyard Lane with greatly increased traffic, noise, and safety
hazards.
We request that every agency and department of the Town of Southold that is asked to
review, grant variances to, or approve of this project carefully restrict the size, conditions,
and permitted uses of the property so that Okido can live in harmony with its neighbors
as well as with itself.
At a minimum it is necessary to ameliorate the traffic impact by downsizing the project,
providing for adequate on-site parking for all intended uses of the property, and to
mitigate noise by prohibiting the use of any amplified announcements or music on the
property.
Sincerely,
2t)
1I ti
Pea rya �D
��u oa 5 fe
ogSv ?IVA
4 // •; " V'J✓IJ�.l1G.-{r'L \�� �/ J' l 1,II 7i V V 1 rtw al
Rd 4 7
geftr pv�— 7(
3aq F.�e til '`� -C)seA,
>qF
April 20, 2006
Jerilyn Woodhouse, Chairperson —�
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall F,
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the Board:
As year-round residents of East Marion in New York, we would like to express
our concerns about the proposed Gaia Holistic Center on the grounds of the former
Oyster Factory on Shipyard Lane.
East Marion is already home to a hotel resort(formerly known as "The Blue
Dolphin"),restaurant("The Hellenic"), and several Bed and Breakfast establishments
(including"Quintessentials Bed and Breakfast Spa".)All of these commercial
establishments are on the Main Road(Route 25.) Excessive traffic there,both ferry and
otherwise, is already an issue for our hamlet. The proposed Holistic Center would bring
even more traffic to the area in general and to our neighborhood in particular.
While Shipyard Lane may have been used commercially years ago, at the present
time it is a quiet, safe, residential street with many houses and families and no sidewalks.
Additionally, Shipyard Lane is the only means that residents have of accessing their
condos in Cleaves Point Condominiums, the homes in the Summit development, as well
as our homes on Fire Road#7. According to the proposed site plan, Shipyard Lane will
bear the additional burden of traffic from construction vehicles, landscapers, employees,
and diners as well as from patrons and the shuttle buses proposed to transport them to
other places outside of East Marion.
Gillette Drive also borders the Oyster Property,but it too, is ill-suited for the
traffic that the Center could generate. The other streets in Marion Manor(East Gillette,
Manor Place, Midland Place and Cleaves Point Road) can only be accessed from Gillette
Drive. The Holistic Center property is accessible only via Shipyard Lane or Gillette Drive
and these two residential country roads can only be accessed from Route 25. More traffic
is unsafe and un-desirable to all North Fork Residents.
April 20, 2006
Page 2
In addition to the traffic and safety issues, East Marion neighbors are also
concerned about the light and noise that could be generated by the Center. While the
Center's plan presentation includes low lights and promises minimal noise, a project of
this major size and scope will have a direct effect upon the neighbors who live on the
adjacent properties on Fire Road#7 and on Gillette Drive. In light of the fact that there
are no light or noise ordinance standards in Southold Town, we feel that the proposed 25
foot buffer originating at the property line meets only the minimal requirement, is
inadequate,and should be extended. Light pollution from car and golf cart parking areas,
and noise from construction,maintenance of buildings, gardens and grounds, and the
day- into-night use of the hotel, guest rooms, and restaurant,marina, and spa facilities
pose a threat to the peace and privacy of ourselves and our neighbors.
While the owner of the proposed Holistic Center seeks to establish it as a place of
"international importance", the residents of East Marion ask the Southold Town Planning
Board to consider and preserve the present small-town character of our hamlet.
Sincerely,
Eva McGuire
Martin Sarandria
490 Fire Road#7
P. O. Box 101
East Marion,NY
11939
ST
44
John V. Kent ,.
2195 Shipyard Lane
East Marion,New York 11939 "
April 11,2006. -
Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson of Southhold Planning Board
P>O>Box1179
Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dear Ms. Jeri Woodhouse:
I am disturbed by the fact that a major construction site, currently known as the Oyster
Factory on Shipyard Lane, East Marion, has been pre-approved without proper public
hearing. It is presented as"a done deal!"
Let it be on the record that I'm oppose to this type of construction site that represents
nothing else than a distraction of our community and way of our lives. It is inconceivable
to allow this monstrosity to be permitted for the benefit of selected very few rich
individuals while the residents of this community are abused in this way and sacrificed
for that selected group of people. This proposal is a brutal attach against our
community!
What is really going on! There cannot be business as usual; serious questions will be
asked concerning this matter!
Yours very alarmed and concerned citizen,
JV. Kent
Marion Manor
Property Owners Association
2530 Gillette Drive
East Marion, New York 11939
- -- -'
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Annex D � E 1 '
Southold,New York 11971
APR - 6
Re: Oki-Do Gaia Holistic Circle
! plan I, �scard
Dear Mr. Solomon,
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.
While we are pleased with the removal of the marina gas pump,the following lists
are concerns that have not been addressed regarding the proposed Gaia project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marion Manor Association
Gene Walker VP
Nancy Grathwohl Sec.
Bob Muir
cc: P. Moore
1- Gillette Drive/Cleaves Point Access Road — Emergency Vehicles only
must be demanded and enforced. There are many young children (15)
residing on Gillette Drive whose numbers quadruple in the summer with
visiting grandkids. This exit needs to be gated and locked to ensure that
it is used strictly for emergency access.
2- Drainage—We have serious problems with flooding on Gillette Drive
and do not want that problem enhanced by inadequate drainage at the
Gaia site. The original plans contained drainage ponds on the east side
and the new site plan has buildings in those areas. How have they
accounted for the drainage? Is it adequate?
3- Owner's/Manager's House — The manager's house has been located
closer to the shore than in the original plans. It is located where the
drainage ponds were initially proposed. We do not believe there is any
reason for this home to be constructed so close to the water and there
are many environmental reasons why it should not.
4- East side Parking—WHY? If they plan on valet parking, why are they
planning for cars driving the perimeter to park on the east? We are
concerned this is parking for the "emergency" entrance.
March 2, 2006
Ms. Jeri Woodhouse, Chairman
Planning Board Y
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
F, 4
Dear Ms. Woodhouse
V
Re: Gaia Circle aka Oki-Do Property in East Marion (Forme arm)
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,
��
Robert F. Muir Jos ph Licciardi
2850 Gillette Drive 50 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939 East Marion, NY 11939
AI LEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KEAY, �L
DUBIN, REALE & QUARTARARO, LLP
Attorneys at Law U�
THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Maih0,ARBUO,. Location OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN B. LATHAM Post Office Box 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LAVALLE
JOHN F. SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD 0
CHRISTOPHER o. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-9398
LAURA I.SGUAZZVAN CO
T
DAVID M. D BIN*REAL BRYAN C.VANE,JR
J EDWARD REALE CVRUS G. 000N JR
JAY P.QUARTARAR01 Telephone: 631.727.2180 A
PETER M. MOTT Facslmlle: 631.727.1767 ALICIA SA A.A ZNATO}
JANICE L. SNEAD KATHRYN DALLI
JANE DiGIACOMO DANIEL G.WANIt
PHILIP D. NVKAMP wwwsuffolklaw.com THOMAS GIBBONS
MARTIN D. FINNEGANB
ANNE MARIE GOODALE LL M.IN TAXATLON t
L1.M.IN ESTATE PLANNING O
NY
A LA BARS 0
S A
e-mail: dciubin@suffolklaw.com N V®PA BARS B
NV, J. S O
J BARS
FL BARS}
NY NJ,CT,a FL BARS •
February 9, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE and
FEDERAL EXPRESS
I s,
i;
Jeralyn Woodhouse, Chairperson
Southold Town Planning Board F r
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road "
Southold, NY 11971
..
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion, New*orky
Dear Chairperson Woodhouse and Members of the Board:
This firm represents Cleaves Point Condominiums, which consist of sixty-two
unit owners who reside directly across Shipyard Lane from the proposed Gaia Holistic
Center. As such, we request permission to make comments at the upcoming Planning
Board work session on February 13, 2006 regarding the impacts the proposed project
will have upon the unit owners. After reviewing the site plan recently submitted by
Butt Otruba-O'Connor, of paramount concern to the Cleaves Point condominium unit
owners at this time are (i) traffic access; (ii) noise and (iii) the studies and mitigation that
will be required.
I. Traffic Access
As we explained to the applicant's attorney back on February S, 2005 (copy
enclosed), Shipyard Lane is a residential country road. At present, there is often a
bottleneck when attempting to access Main Road (Route 25), which is exacerbated by
the Ferry traffic. The problem of traffic access is compounded by the impaired sight
lines when looking west from the intersection of Shipyard Lane and Main Street, raising
safety issues.
20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET 400 TOWNUINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NV 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NV 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NV 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NV 11788 SOUTHOLD, NV 11971
631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300
February 9, 2006 • •
Page 2
According to the applicant's consultant's traffic report: "an estimated 107 vehicle
trips per hour will be generated by the proposed G. Holistic Center Development (55 in
and 52 out)" during the weekends. It is unclear whether this estimate is based on the
center and restaurant at full occupancy and fully staffed. In any event, adding this
usage of Shipyard Lane to the present usage by the sixty-two unit owners at Cleaves
Point Condominiums, the 28 homes along the east side of Shipyard Lane, and the 22
homes within the Summit Development, the current traffic problems will be made far
worse, unsafe and unmanageable. It should also be noted that two of the three
proposed access points to the Holistic Center are directly across Shipyard Lane from the
two access points of ingress and egress to Cleaves Point Condominiums.
With this in mind, there will need to be substantial measures taken to alleviate
the impact the proposed Holistic Center and its guests, patrons and employees will
have upon the residents along Shipyard Lane. It is completely unclear from the
documents submitted by the applicant how the use of public transportation,
vanpooling, carpooling or shuttle buses will mitigate this problem. Where will these
vehicles pick up and drop off the guests? Ultimately, the center's guests, patrons and
employees will need to use Shipyard Lane to gain access to the site as proposed.
Among other considerations, we maintain that the Holistic Center should also
use Cleaves Point Road and Gillette Drive for ingress and egress, and a traffic light at
the intersection of Main Road and Shipyard Lane and improved sight lines should be
carefully studied.
II. Noise
It is unclear from the documents on file how many persons can be
accommodated in the motel buildings, "sleeping rooms", and "public restaurant".
Specifically, how many quests will be accommodated and what is the planned
occupancy for the public restaurant? Needless to say, based on the number of people
utilizing the facilities, this will influence the impact on their neighbors. Notably, there is
no commitment about controlling the level of noise generated from the premises in the
papers that we have reviewed. To this end, we expect to see substantial screening and
buffering and to know whether the applicant intends to have music or generate other
noise from the premises.
III. Studies and Analyses
It is our understanding that the applicant has been issued by the Southold
Building Department a Notice of Disapproval dated July 5, 2004, and a renewed and
amended Notice of Disapproval dated October 26, 2005 because of the proximity of the
proposed project to the existing bulkhead and because the proposed motel and
restaurant uses require special exception approval from the Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals.
February 9, 2006 • •
Page 3
Based on the scope and magnitude of the proposed Holistic Center, and its
proximity to Orient Harbor, we expect that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be required by the lead agency under SEQRA. With respect to the environmental
impacts, we are concerned about the number of boats proposed for the marina, the
dimensions of the proposed stone revetment, whether public water service is readily
available, and whether the proposed sewage treatment plant has worked successfully
elsewhere. In addition, we are also concerned about the number of parking spaces
provided on the premises, and the total capacity for the premises if the transient motels,
sleeping rooms and public restaurant are full to capacity and fully staffed by employees.
In addition to an environmental impact statement, we submit that a more
thorough traffic study should be submitted to address the concerns raised above.
Thank you for including this letter in the record of the referenced application.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our comments at the work session on
February 13, 2006.
ry truly yours,
David M. Dubin `
DMD/ms
Enclosures
cc: Cleaves Point Condominiums
TVG J EY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELL , LLP
Attorneys at Law
THOMAS A.TWOMEY.JR. Melling Address Location OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN B.LATHAM Post Office BOK 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P.LAVALLE
JOHN F.SHEA.III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C.HATFIELD S
I CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-9396
MAUREEN T.LICCIONE ANNE MARIE GOODALE f:
DAVID M.DUBINO LABRA I.SGUAZZINA !
P. EDWARD REALE Telephone:631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO
PETER M.MOTT F...lmlle:831.727.1767 BRYAN C.VAN COTT•
JAY P.OUARTARAROt CYRUS G.DOLCE--
JANICE L.SNEAD ALICIA S.O'CONNORA
MARTHA L.LUFT www.suffolklaw.com LISA A.AZZATO} �
JANE DIGIACOMO KATHRYN DALLI
PHILIP D.NYKAMP _
NY.LA RANA O
MARTIN O.FINNEGANa
LLM.IN TAXATION t
Ba
NY,NJ.A PA 9AR6 O
NY 6 NJ BARS
NY.NJ.FL,&OT BARB
ddubin@suffolklaw.com MMY.OCTFLE6 GANNING BARS}
February 8, 2005
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: , Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
S Cf M#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001
Dear Ms. Moore:
We have been retained by Cleaves Point Condominiums, a neighbor to your
client, Oki-Do, Ltd., with regard to their concerns over the proposed construction of Oki-
Do's Holistic Center, which we understand includes a motel, spa, restaurant, marina, pool
and employee residences on the referenced premises.
Our clients would like to be heard and have input with regard to the impact such a
project will have upon the unit owners. Of utmost concern to Cleaves Point
Condominiums are the proposed ingresses and egresses, and changes to existing traffic
patterns because Shipyard Lane is a residential country road. Among other
considerations our clients feel are important is a plan that will result in a mutual benefit
when evaluating the project's scope, density, generated noise, waste removal and
shoreline restoration.
As such, we are sending a copy of this letter to the Southold Zoning Board of
Appeals and Southold Planning Department so that we are included and notified of all
future hearings and meetings concerning this proposed project as a whole and, especially,
Ba MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET ONE LAST MAIN STREET,SUITE 1 Opp TOWNLINE ROAD SE&IO MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON.NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY T976 BAY SHORE,NY 1906 HAUPPAUGE,NY 117BB SOUTHOLD,NY 11971
631.324.1200 e31.2m.0080 6$1.828.4400 631.865.6300 631.265.1414 631.765.2300
■
all hearings and meetings concerning any proposed ingresses, egresses or changes to
existing traffic patterns.
Lastly, we would appreciate your advising us as to the current status of this
project. It is our understanding that the project received a Notice of Disapproval from the
Southold Building Department in July 2004 due to the fact that the referenced parcel is
not zoned for a "resort hotel/motel."
We look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
v�
David M. Dubin
cc: Ruth D. Oliva,
Chairperson of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Valerie Scopaz,
Southold Planning Department
Cleaves Point Condominiums
DMD/dq
PATRICIA C.MOORE /
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643
March 10, 2005
Twomey, Lathem, Shea & Kelly, LLP
David M. Dubin Esq
P.O .Box 9398
Riverhead, NY 11901
e ,
Re: Oki-Do, ltd. i
Premises : 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
SCTM#1000-38-7-7 . 001
Dear Mr. Dubin:
I am in receipt of your February 8, 2005 letter, however, I
did not interpret your letter to require my response.
Nevertheless, I would share with you the following in an effort to
begin our dialogue .
It is my understanding that the owner' s architects met with
representatives from the Cleaves Point Condominium Association in
the summer. They discussed the project and received your client' s
initial comments and concerns . We are attempting to address your
client' s concerns in the planning of this project prior to our re-
submission to the town, we hope to work cooperatively with your
clients .
As you know the property is a large parcel which permits
development of numerous commercial and marine industrial uses, my
client has proposed less intensive permitted uses of a transient
motel, marina, and restaurant . The site was previously a very
intensive commercial use (Oyster factory) with numerous industrial
buildings and abandoned boats . My client has begun to clean up the
site for the benefit of the community.
With regard to the status, we are in the process of
researching and gathering data required for the SEQRA review and
submission of a draft environmental impact statement . Her plan
will incorporate environmental architecture and energy credits
which are encouraged by all agencies . Once this information is
complete we will proceed with our regulatory review before the
Town.
With regard to the notice of disapproval, we disagree with the
building inspector' s initial determination that the project is a
"resort motel" rather than a "transient motel" . The definitions
are almost identical, we will abide by the transient definition in
the code and this matter remains unresolved with the building
department. My client has described the combination of permitted
uses (i . e transient motel, restaurant and marina) as a "Spa"
because it reflects more accurately a first class motel, restaurant
and marina rather than a budget motel . Moreover, the owner' s plans
are to make this a world class site. The owner wishes to emphasize
the tranquility of the site through design and landscaping. The
multi-million dollar development of this property as a world renown
and exclusive destination is intended to enhance the value of your
client' s property. My client is an owner of one of the units in
the Cleaves Point Condominium. As a property owner in the Cleaves
Point development, she would not develop her property in such a way
that would devalue or adversely impact her investment in the
Cleaves Point Condominium.
As background information, my client is of Japanese heritage
and the entire plan is designed to honor her heritage. Lush
gardens and waterfall treatments are an integral part of her
design. She has no intentions of dishonoring her heritage with a
less than premier development. The existing industrial property
with dilapidated buildings will be transformed into a garden
paradise.
We hope that the Town and your clients will recognize the
opportunity to redevelop this diamond in the rough. We hope that
your clients will cooperate and join in supporting this
application.
Very' 1 yours,
PKtricia C. Moore
cc : Ruth D. Oliva, Chairperson/
Jeri Woodhouse, Chairperson
Valerie Scopaz, Planner
Mike Verity, Building Inspector
TW*EY, LATHAM, SHEA &c KELW, LLP
Attorneys at Law
THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN 8. LATHAM Post Office Box 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH R LAVALLE
JOHN F.SHEA.111 Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C.HATFIELD A
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-9398
OODALE
MAUREEN L LICCIONE ANNE MARIE GUAZZINA
LAURAI. PALUM O
DAVM M. D PEAL
R EDWARD REALE Telephone: 631.7222180 TRACY KAgSCH PgLUM80
PETER M.MOTT Fepsi tulle'. 631.727.1767 BRYAN C.VAN OOTT
CIA S. 'CG. DOLCE°•
JAY C O L.
SNEA ARO' pLIC1A S.O'CONNOR&
JANICE L L.
LUFT
MARTHA L. LUFT WWW.SuffO k12W.COm LISA A. A
KATHRYNN DALLILLI
JANE DiG IACOMO
PHILIP D. NYKAMP IN LA BARS O
MARTIN D. FINNEGANU ILL
MTAXATION
1
NV Is LT BARS A
MY NJ,IsPA BARB p
Fry B NJ BARS,
NJ.FL,8LA BARS A
NTNG
N BCT FL. PLANNING e
ddubin@suffolklaw.com NY. .BBA BARB}
February 8, 2005
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. FEB - 8 2005
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
SCrM#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001
Dear Ms. Moore:
We have been retained by Cleaves Point Condominiums, a neighbor to your
client, Oki-Do, Ltd., with regard to their concerns over the proposed construction of Oki-
Do's Holistic Center, which we understand includes a motel, spa, restaurant, marina, pool
and employee residences on the referenced premises.
Our clients would like to be heard and have input with regard to the impact such a
project will have upon the unit owners. Of utmost concern to Cleaves Point
Condominiums are the proposed ingresses and egresses, and changes to existing traffic
patterns because Shipyard Lane is a residential country road. Among other
considerations our clients feel are important is a plan that will result in a mutual benefit
when evaluating the project's scope, density, generated noise, waste removal and
shoreline restoration.
As such, we are sending a copy of this letter to the Southold Zoning Board of
Appeals and Southold Planning Department so that we are included and notified of all
future hearings and meetings concerning this proposed project as a whole and, especially,
20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET ONE EAST MAIN STREET,SUITE 1 GCp TOWNUNE ROAD 56040 MAIN ROAD,P O,BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11966 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 BAY SHORE,NY 11706 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD.NY 11971
631.320,1200 &91.2870090 831.928.4000 631,685,8300 631.265.1014 631,765,2300
all hearings and meetings concerning any proposed ingresses, egresses or changes to
existing traffic patterns.
Lastly, we would appreciate your advising us as to the current status of this
project. It is our understanding that the project received a Notice of Disapproval from the
Southold Building Department in July 2004 due to the fact that the referenced parcel is
not zoned for a "resort hotel/motel."
We look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
4--
l�l
David M. Dubin
cc: Ruth D. Oliva,
Chairperson of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Valerie Scopaz,
Southold Planning Department
Cleaves Point Condominiums
DMD/dq
4 TW REY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELOY, LLP
Attorneys at Law 5
THOMAS A.TWOMEY.JR. Ma111n0 Address Location OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN B. LATHAM Post Office So. 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LAVALLE
JOHN F.SHEA,III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD&
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-9398
MAUREEN T.LICCIONE ANNE MARIE GOODALE
DAVID M. DUaINO LAURA I.SGUAZZIN4
P. EDWARD REALE TalaPNona: 631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO
PETER M.U MOAT Facsimile: 631.727.1767
BRYAN C.VAN COTT
JAY P.C O L.
SN ARAR01 CIA S. 'CG.DOLCE4'
JA MARTHA
L SNEAD ALICIA S. A.AZZ OR+
MARTHA L. LOFT www.suffolklaw.com LISA A.N DATO+
JANE DiG1ACOM0 KATHRYN DALLI
PHILIP O.NYKAMP
MARTIN D. FINNEGANB NY S u BARS o
LL.M,IN TAXATION t
NY 8 GT BARS A
NY,NJ,a PA BARS O
NY 8 NJ BARS
NY,NJ.FL,6 GT BARS
LL M.IN ESTATE PLANNING
m su olklaw.com NY.DO.EL. o
ddu a GA BARS+
February 8,2005
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. _
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd. ._.__.,.__
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
S C f M#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001
Dear Ms. Moore:
We have been retained by Cleaves Point Condominiums, a neighbor to your
client, Oki-Do, Ltd., with regard to their concerns over the proposed construction of Oki-
Do's Holistic Center, which we understand includes a motel, spa, restaurant, marina, pool
and employee residences on the referenced premises.
Our clients would like to be heard and have input with regard to the impact such a
project will have upon the unit owners. Of utmost concern to Cleaves Point
Condominiums are the proposed ingresses and egresses, and changes to existing traffic
patterns because Shipyard Lane is a residential country road. Among other
considerations our clients feel are important is a plan that will result in a mutual benefit
when evaluating the project's scope, density, generated noise, waste removal and
shoreline restoration.
As such, we are sending a copy of this letter to the Southold Zoning Board of
Appeals and Southold Planning Department so that we are included and notified of all
future hearings and meetings concerning this proposed project as a whole and, especially,
20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET ONE EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 1 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA..NY 11776 BAY SHORE,NY 11706 HAUPPAUGE.NY 1988 SOUTHOLD,NY 11971
631.324.1200 631.287DD90 831.9284400 631.665.8300 631.265.1414 631 765,2300
M
1
all hearings and meetings concerning any proposed ingresses, egresses or changes to
existing traffic patterns.
Lastly, we would appreciate your advising us as to the current status of this
project. It is our understanding that the project received a Notice of Disapproval from the
Southold Building Department in July 2004 due to the fact that the referenced parcel is
not zoned for a "resort hotel/motel."
We look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
David M. Dubin
cc: Ruth D. Oliva,
Chairperson of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Valerie Scopaz,
Southold Planning Department
Cleaves Point Condominiums
DMD/dq